US Department of the Navy vs France

[Infected Mushroom]

Please consider the following hypothetical:

The USA is trying to invade France.

However, the USA can only use the forces under the Department of the Navy (mainly including the US Navy and the US Marine Corps). France is allowed to use its entire military.

No nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Also, no other countries may intervene militarily in the war (though they may impose sanctions or supply weapons). The American forces have a 2 year window in which to establish military victory over France. The win condition for this hypothetical will be complete control of 5 major cities in continental France (one of which must be include Paris).

In this scenario, American public opinion remains substantially pro war irrespective of what may happen. In the event that the USA introduces conscription, the additional soldiers may not use existing military weapons from the other branches (they are not to be used in this war). All military equipment used by the conscripts would either have to come from the munitions stockpiles controlled by the Department of the Navy or else constructed/bought from nothing.

The USA will declare war immediately but give France three months of prep time before attacking (the USA can prep too but in strict accordance with the rules).

Which side would prevail under these engagement conditions? How do you think the war would go down? Please explain.

I would expect the Americans to prevail in the sea and air engagements. However, the French forces having superior numbers might be able to prevent the USMC from occupying 5 major cities in the 2 year window, especially if they mobilize reserves.

[Biladu Al Rafidayn]

DELETED

[Northern Seleucia]

Well, for starters, ignoring every other country, I think it'll be pretty quickly that the U.S will gain naval supremacy, and will have some control over the skies (the U.S Navy/Marines have the Second Largest Air Force unironically). Logistics will be on the side of the French as it is literally home territory, so whenever they gain air supremacy, the U.S will need to be relentless in it's air campaign. No WMDs are allowed, but nothing was mentioned of war crimes, so ***theoretically*** the U.S could also bomb hospitals and critical infrastructure.

Regardless, coastal cities will be rather destroyed. If the U.S adopts a Russian-style policy of grinding a city down via airstrikes, then it could force a surrender -or- the U.S could maintain it's current policy.

You said U.S morale is constantly at 100% pro-war, but nothing of France's morale, so a Psyops campaign done by the Navy is possible.

France could still use the rest of it's military, which will be a burden - especially the Foreign Legion, and it will have home advantage.

This is a tricky one.

[Northern Seleucia]

Please consider the following hypothetical:

The USA is trying to invade France.

However, the USA can only use the forces under the Department of the Navy (mainly including the US Navy and the US Marine Corps). France is allowed to use its entire military.

No nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Also, no other countries may intervene militarily in the war (though they may impose sanctions or supply weapons). The American forces have a 2 year window in which to establish military victory over France. The win condition for this hypothetical will be complete control of 5 major cities in continental France (one of which must be include Paris).

In this scenario, American public opinion remains substantially pro war irrespective of what may happen. In the event that the USA introduces conscription, the additional soldiers may not use existing military weapons from the other branches (they are not to be used in this war). All military equipment used by the conscripts would either have to come from the munitions stockpiles controlled by the Department of the Navy or else constructed/bought from nothing.

Which side would prevail under these engagement conditions? How do you think the war would go down? Please explain.

I would expect the Americans to prevail in the sea and air engagements. However, the French forces having superior numbers might be able to prevent the USMC from occupying 5 major cities in the 2 year window, especially if they mobilize reserves.

France will nuke USA if it manages to land and advance significantly. Problem over

No nuclear weapons

Also, last I checked, the U.S could easily nuke back, and more often. France is significantly smaller and easier to saturate with nuclear weapons.

[Biladu Al Rafidayn]

France will nuke USA if it manages to land and advance significantly. Problem over

No nuclear weapons

Also, last I checked, the U.S could easily nuke back, and more often. France is significantly smaller and easier to saturate with nuclear weapons.

I was rereading the OP and I saw that. Removed.

But it’s whoever strikes first. If France manages to completely wipe out America, that means the end

[Northern Seleucia]

No nuclear weapons

Also, last I checked, the U.S could easily nuke back, and more often. France is significantly smaller and easier to saturate with nuclear weapons.

I was rereading the OP and I saw that. Removed.

But it’s whoever strikes first. If France manages to completely wipe out America, that means the end

Not that simple.

Whoever strikes first is one thing, but the U.S is massive and thinly populated compared to Europe. *Completely wiping out* the U.S is very difficult when you only have 300 nuclear weapons, and there are U.S nukes stationed in Europe that, at the earliest sign of incoming, can fire back at France and reach first, due to significantly shorter distance.

Plus, you know, air defenses and all that would mean that France will land some nukes, but certainly not all, and nowhere near enough to wipe out the entire country.

Hence the term Mutually Assured Destruction.

---

[Chan Island]

France wins in this scenario, and it's not even close.

It is the world's 5th largest military spender, and has an active duty armed forces comparable to the US Navy. It has the GIGN, a special forces unit every bit as elite as the Navy Seals or the Marines are. France maintains a shadow colonial empire and its troops have plenty of recent experience fighting in west Africa. While you are ruling out other countries intervening militarily, you decide that they can supply weapons- and if you believe that Europe is enthusiastic about supplying weapons to Ukraine right now, just you wait until it's this case! French forces will be fighting for their homeland, while the US is sailing across an entire ocean.

Assuming of course we keep it to just the Navy... which this hypothetical then muddies by introducing the idea of US conscription or building new stuff for the Navy. Far as I can see, there is nothing stopping the US Navy from becoming de facto the Army, Airforce and Navy all at the same time. The new navy tank corps might prove effective.

But all France needs to do here is survive 2 years and hold Paris to claim the win. This, with near certainty, they could accomplish.

Of course, in the real world this conflict would see nuclear weapons fly. So everyone loses.

[The Orwell Society]

I am fairly positive that it'll end in a stalemate. However, why would the US invade France in the first place?

[Northern Seleucia]

I am fairly positive that it'll end in a stalemate. However, why would the US invade France in the first place?

Freedom fries instead of french fries.

[Biladu Al Rafidayn]

I was rereading the OP and I saw that. Removed.

But it’s whoever strikes first. If France manages to completely wipe out America, that means the end

Not that simple.

Whoever strikes first is one thing, but the U.S is massive and thinly populated compared to Europe. *Completely wiping out* the U.S is very difficult when you only have 300 nuclear weapons, and there are U.S nukes stationed in Europe that, at the earliest sign of incoming, can fire back at France and reach first, due to significantly shorter distance.

Plus, you know, air defenses and all that would mean that France will land some nukes, but certainly not all, and nowhere near enough to wipe out the entire country.

Hence the term Mutually Assured Destruction.

---

300 nuclear weapons are incredibly deadly. It would end up in the destruction of both countries. Oh, and nukes can’t be intercepted.

[Northern Seleucia]

Not that simple.

Whoever strikes first is one thing, but the U.S is massive and thinly populated compared to Europe. *Completely wiping out* the U.S is very difficult when you only have 300 nuclear weapons, and there are U.S nukes stationed in Europe that, at the earliest sign of incoming, can fire back at France and reach first, due to significantly shorter distance.

Plus, you know, air defenses and all that would mean that France will land some nukes, but certainly not all, and nowhere near enough to wipe out the entire country.

Hence the term Mutually Assured Destruction.

---

300 nuclear weapons are incredibly deadly. It would end up in the destruction of both countries. Oh, and nukes can’t be intercepted.

Nukes 100% can be intercepted. The U.S has a whole defense network of this specifically built to do that.

Edit: Oh, and this too for the Navy. Shiieeet, there's a whole agency dedicated to just that.

[Hukhalia]

USA. Not even close.

[Northern Seleucia]

USA. Not even close.

Relevant (in a joking way, not seriously

[Hukhalia]

USA. Not even close.

Relevant (in a joking way, not seriously

I mean I wouldn't want the USA to win. But at the same time, I'm English. Hating France is also in my blood.

[Northern Seleucia]

Relevant (in a joking way, not seriously

I mean I wouldn't want the USA to win. But at the same time, I'm English. Hating France is also in my blood.

Also relevant

[Hukhalia]

I mean I wouldn't want the USA to win. But at the same time, I'm English. Hating France is also in my blood.

Also relevant

britmaxxing

[Northern Seleucia]

Also relevant

britmaxxing

Last One I have before I head off to Hot Takes to start some drama again

[Biladu Al Rafidayn]

300 nuclear weapons are incredibly deadly. It would end up in the destruction of both countries. Oh, and nukes can’t be intercepted.

Nukes 100% can be intercepted. The U.S has a whole defense network of this specifically built to do that.

Edit: Oh, and this too for the Navy. Shiieeet, there's a whole agency dedicated to just that.

THAAD isn’t for ICBMs

[Northern Seleucia]

Nukes 100% can be intercepted. The U.S has a whole defense network of this specifically built to do that.

Edit: Oh, and this too for the Navy. Shiieeet, there's a whole agency dedicated to just that.

THAAD isn’t for ICBMs

France never had ICBMs. They did build IRBMS, but commissioned all of them in September 1996, which the THAAD could have intercepted. All they have is sub nukes, which can be intercepted by Aegis.

[Biladu Al Rafidayn]

THAAD isn’t for ICBMs

France never had ICBMs. They did build IRBMS, but commissioned all of them in September 1996, which the THAAD could have intercepted. All they have is sub nukes, which can be intercepted by Aegis.

The AEGIS would have to be close to the missile, and considering France’s many territories, these missiles could come from anywhere

[Hukhalia]

France never had ICBMs. They did build IRBMS, but commissioned all of them in September 1996, which the THAAD could have intercepted. All they have is sub nukes, which can be intercepted by Aegis.

The AEGIS would have to be close to the missile, and considering France’s many territories, these missiles could come from anywhere

france doesn't possess land-based missile systems so france's territories are relatively pointless in that sense

[Washington Resistance Army]

The entire Department of the Navy? The US probably stomps in that case, they'd far outnumber France in terms of combat aircraft thanks to the Marine Corps operating their own air fleet and the presence of every single CSG the US has. The USMC also outnumbers the French Army proper and really the only thing they'd be lacking is MBT's but France only has some 200 in service and that's a rather trivial number to destroy when USFOR would likely have near total air supremacy relatively quickly.

[Biladu Al Rafidayn]

The AEGIS would have to be close to the missile, and considering France’s many territories, these missiles could come from anywhere

france doesn't possess land-based missile systems so france's territories are relatively pointless in that sense

True. But they could use their nukes on the invaders after they land

[Hukhalia]

france doesn't possess land-based missile systems so france's territories are relatively pointless in that sense

True. But they could use their nukes on the invaders after they land

??? what does this even mean

[Biladu Al Rafidayn]

True. But they could use their nukes on the invaders after they land

??? what does this even mean

Enemy land. They start taking land. Nuke hits them.

Anyway, let’s stop talking about nukes in this thread. So, I think that the US would get air and naval superiority, but eventually it would grind down into guérilla warfare. The US might be able to defeat France quickly enough, but the eventual cost of the invasion would be too much and they will be forced to retreat