Which is easier: Conquering a country or genociding one?

[GoC]

More or less what the title says. Is it easier to pacify a country or exterminate all (or nearly all) of it's inhabitants?

[Adlan]

Depends on the country in Question.

But with the current amount of nukes availible to goverments, I'd go for Destroying the country as easier.

[Coidzor]

Depends on the level of technology one has. And what type of countries are at play.

Certain countries are better able to completely depopulate a stretch of territory better than others or are more willingly able to do it.

Let's say the United States versus Liberia. The U.S. could easily carpet bomb the nation or (if international pressures were off, which they'd have to be anyway) use strategically placed nukes based on wind-patterns for fallout to irradiate the land and obliterate the population centers very easily. Getting the military to agree to such a thing or the public to not have an outcry against it on the other hand...

And it would be far more easy to do that than to subdue the perpetually warring state and dearm the populace and somehow deal with all of the child soldiers and problems enough to stabilize the area.

Or just look at the U.S.'s experiences in Haiti and the Phillipines.

[GoC]

Hmm...
Let's say France vs. Somalia.

[RS14]

Depends on what you mean by conquering, but I'm going to assume you mean conquering and pacifying. Conquering is likely to be a prerequisite for genocide, unless you have access to nukes.

In that case, pacifying is likely to be much harder. An artificial famine can be induced even with an uncooperative populace.

[GoC]

Depends on what you mean by conquering, but I'm going to assume you mean conquering and pacifying. Conquering is likely to be a prerequisite for genocide, unless you have access to nukes.

Not necessarily. Go from city to city systematically killing everyone in each city. First surounding it with paras and anti-infantry units to prevent anyone escaping.

Still. I'm not sure so that's why I asked.

[RS14]

Not necessarily. Go from city to city systematically killing everyone in each city. First surounding it with paras and anti-infantry units to prevent anyone escaping.

Still. I'm not sure so that's why I asked.
You're still going to want to lay siege to the cities and starve them into submission. City fighting is difficult, even against a disarmed populace. When their are enemy troops inside and outside, it will grow much harder. In Somalia, in particular, plenty of people will be armed.

[Coidzor]

Hmm...
Let's say France vs. Somalia.

Alright: Rough requirements for Genocide. Ethical problems imminent. Not for the faint of heart. Establish air-superiority so that no one can drop-in any significant quantities of humanitarian relief aid (though allowing some food drops would provoke mini-civil wars within the cities, at least at first, and help exacerbate starvation conditions and tensions between the haves and have-nots when both parties have access to weaponry). Blockade the coastline and take out any conglomerations of pirates and make sure no one is getting in or out of the cities by boat or ship.

Drive the populace out of the countryside and into the cities for protection (probably have to get the neighboring countries to cooperate at least in some way, or could just let them all end up in refugee camps to mop up later or be acceptable numbers of survivors). Cut the cities off from the outside world (this is essentially a variant of communist guerrilla tactics), softening them as necessary to promote poor sanitary conditions, civil war, and cannibalism while preventing them from mounting enough resistance to be a threat.

Then it's basically a waiting game around the population centers other than the patrols through the countryside and occasional bombing.

Now the only question is, what do you do with the place?

Not sure how you'd go about pacifying the nation though....

[RS14]

Not sure how you'd go about pacifying the nation though....

Quite frankly, concentration camps, in the style of the Philippine-American war or the Second Boer War. You don't need to kill everyone; just disarm them, imprison them, and use scorched earth tactics whenever you encounter resistance. Do everything you can to cripple communication, so you can use propaganda to crush the morale of the remaining resistance.



Not for the faint of heart.
You said it.

[hamishspence]

I remember seeing discussions of this sort of thing in The Discourses- and just how difficult it was to win that kind of war, and how fierce the fighting was. The first Gaulish invasions of Italy were one example. Also, the Ottoman rulers invading other countries.

question would be- what happens if inhabitants get wind of it- will they disperse to forests, mountains, etc, and conduct guerilla warfare? Does such warfare require element of surprise, even if superiority is overwhelming, to prevent this?

[TigerHunter]

Not sure how you'd go about pacifying the nation though....
Two options: make them love you, or make them fear you. Fear is better in the short-term, love is better in the long term.

[rankrath]

which is easier, killing a man or making him your friend?

Without a doubt genocide is a far easier task, as one could simply bomb/gas all major population centers and gas country sides, then send the troops in to kill any survivors.
Though I would sat that easiest way to conquer a nation is to make them fear you. The easiest way to accomplish this is through a genocide.

[Innis Cabal]

Slaughtering a country is far easier then taking over. Killing everyone gets rid of the pesky insuregent problem.

As for getting rid of a nation? Far harder. Conquering a nation? Impossible.

[hamishspence]

like I said- easier said than done. Unless all the borders are sealed and there is nowhere to go hidden.

It also depends on if you want the cities, etc still usable.

[RS14]

Guerrilla tactics have been mentioned a couple of times. However, they are not necessarily effective in all circumstances.

We don't have a clear objective here. We're just trying to pacify a country. If we have little or nothing to defend, the threat of guerrillas is reduced. They cannot strike effectively against heavily defended targets, such as military bases. Ports and beachheads can be secured in a similar manner. Entrench, mine, electrify, wire. The only vulnerable targets we must leave would be supply convoys. In much of Somalia, light tracked vehicles should be able to easily fan out to the sides, and gun trucks can lead the pack. If we're putting all civilians into concentration camps, the threat of IEDs and ambushes can be drastically reduced by shooting at anything at all, as we will have redefined civilians to exclude anything that might potentially be a target.

Another weakness of guerrillas is their reliance on a civilian population for food, shelter, ammunition, and manpower. The above-mentioned concentration camps eliminate many of their supply options inside the country. This is good, as it forces them to the borders. We can either treat these as heavily militarized buffer zones, or try to secure them completely. If we're trying to secure them, mining and frequent patrols are probably the best bet. The strategies we're discussing are pretty nasty, so we should assume they'll have strong international support. We'll not be able to launch raids across the border, so they probably won't go away.

Personally, I would not want to try to secure the borders completely. It would be difficult, and more importantly, expensive. This is where they would manage to wear us down, so we shouldn't even try it unless our objectives place some importance on the borders.

Do they?

[GoC]

I remember seeing discussions of this sort of thing in The Discourses- and just how difficult it was to win that kind of war, and how fierce the fighting was. The first Gaulish invasions of Italy were one example. Also, the Ottoman rulers invading other countries.
I submit the rape of nanking as a counterpoint. Genocide can be done.

You're not required to kill them all (though that is preferable), 80% casualties, the near total depopulation of cities and the voluntary/involuntary exile of another 15% will suffice.

This is the primary objective. Getting cities and equipment intact is not required.

[Mando Knight]

It all depends on one factor: how easily does the countryside burn?

Total annihilation is as a rule much easier than making it surrender to your country... the Roman and Macedonian Empires of antiquity are exceptions that prove the rule... although they, too ran into problems from the people they conquered...

No-holds barred total obliteration is easier than ever because of the mid 20th century, given that there is no threat of MAD from other powers...

Barring nuclear weapons, napalm and carpet bombing work well, as does extensive coastal bombardment if the nation is still fairly dependent on its coastal cities.

If there is much greenery (and no limitations on atrocities...), the threat of defoliants and napalm is intensified, and the massive payloads from modern bombers can cover much of the countryside. Modern bombers can also be outfitted with conventional payloads that can level cities in days. Thus, a successful air campaign can turn a fiercely entrenched and embedded guerrilla force to its knees, if the defending nation's industrial and plant-based resources are of no concern to the offensive nation.

[Jack Squat]

Hmm...
Let's say France vs. Somalia.

Very hard for either...unless Somalia's the one on the offensive :smalltongue:

[RS14]

I think it's pretty clear that France can raise or pacify all of Somalia if it resorts to sufficiently brutal tactics.

Two more interesting questions:
Can it conquer and pacify Somalia without drawing international ire? That is, if it can't construct concentration camps, shoot indiscriminately, induce famine, raise cities, etc., can it conquer and pacify the country?

Can it do so economically? Feasible as it is for France to conquer Somalia, guerrilla forces of any sort will need to be opposed with troops on the ground. There is a definite cost to securing the borders. Strong air support is particularly costly. So is it possible to conquer and pacify the country on a limited budget?

[Pyrian]

France can barely pacify France. :smalltongue: It wasn't so long ago that their own Muslims were rioting in the streets. And for all that, they're a bit of a police state - or at least, a heavily-policed nation - already. I'm always struck by the security measures I've seen there and nowhere else.

[Flame of Anor]

This thread is not very cheerful...

...it's time for CHEER-UP CHARLIE, THE CHOKER CLOWN!!!!!

Warning, morbid.

Charlie: Well, HEY there kids, how you DOING HUH? HUH???

6 Kids: We're doing great, Charlie! Don't kill us!

Charlie: I CAN'T HEAR YOU FREAKING TWERPS!!

Charlie *strangles someone*

5 Kids: Aw, Charlie, you're such a goof! Ha-ha!

Charlie: I STILL CAN'T HEAR YOU DA*N RETARDS!!

Charlie *strangles someone*

4 Kids: WE SAID "DON'T KILL US, CHARLIE!!"

Charlie: Ha ha! That's better! Except that you FORGOT THE MAGIC WORD, YOU MINISCULE MORONS!!

Charlie *strangles someone*

3 Kids: PLEASE DON'T KILL US CHARLIE!!

Charlie: Now that's MORE LIKE IT. Idiots. I hate this job.

3 Kids: What are we doing today, Charlie?

Charlie: You mean "WHAT WILL WE BE DOING," YOU MENTAL ASYLUM ESCAPEES!!! WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING AT THE MOMENT!!!

Charlie *strangles someone*

2 Kids: What will we be doing today, Charlie?

Charlie: We? I don't know about WE, but I'll be STRANGLING PEOPLE!!

Charlie *strangles someone*

Kid: Looks like I'm the last one left! I win the chocolate factory, right Charlie?

Charlie: GUESS AGAIN MIDGET!!

Charlie *strangles*

Charlie: Well, that's all for today, folks! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Hope you're cheered up...those of you that aren't MISERABLY DEAD HA HA HA!!!

[Felixaar]

well, I'm cheered up.

[GoC]

France can barely pacify France. :smalltongue: It wasn't so long ago that their own Muslims were rioting in the streets. And for all that, they're a bit of a police state - or at least, a heavily-policed nation - already. I'm always struck by the security measures I've seen there and nowhere else.

Bordering on politics here but: If they could have killed everyone who participated in the riots and declared they would do the same for the next (and make people believe it) I doubt there'd be a second one.

[Player_Zero]

I think the real question here is 'why do you want to know?'

Seriously. Why. It's not a pleasant topic.

[thubby]

destruction. it is laughably easy to conduct a war when all you want is the other guy dead.

[Flame of Anor]

I think the real question here is 'why do you want to know?'

Seriously. Why. It's not a pleasant topic.

What he said.

[GoC]

I think the real question here is 'why do you want to know?'

Seriously. Why. It's not a pleasant topic.

Curiosity. I like speculative military fiction.

[Pyrian]

Bordering on politics here but: If they could have killed everyone who participated in the riots and declared they would do the same for the next (and make people believe it) I doubt there'd be a second one.My answer was in response to the question of whether France could pacify Somalia without committing massive atrocities. I didn't quote the question because it was the post immediately preceding mine. :smallannoyed:

[Jansviper]

Well, I suppose it all depends on your concept of genocide.

You want to kill a whole ****ton of people in a particular racial or religious group you'll have a pretty easy time of it as long as you're acting from a position of superior military might. This is especially true nowadays when taking over countries is frowned upon but killing off the people is less of an issue. The various international powers don't particularly appreciate the lines on the maps changing ya'know?

Now, if you want to be thorough in your genocide and get 'em all as per the definition of the word... well! That takes a bit more work. Long years of planning, massive undertaking, meticulous attention to detail, an artists touch really. Conquering would be much simpler.

[mangosta71]

When you conquer a country, you're left with very few options regarding the populace. First, pacification is probably the best, but not always possible. Second, you could just live with having a hostile native population. And the third is, of course, extermination. Note that I include instilling sufficient fear into the natives to be docile under pacification, even if doing so requires so many "examples" that some might classify it as extermination.

[Griever]

Hmm...
Let's say France vs. Somalia.

I'd say give them a week. By that time, France would have completely surrendered and been conquered by the Somalians.

About two weeks later, the country would be liberated by a force comprised of 14 British, 17 Americans, whose bags are being carried by 30 Frenchman.

[Evil DM Mark3]

If you have modern weapons and the enemy doesn't (or even if they do but less so) then genocide is easier but probably more expensive (WMDs are not cheap).

[black_Lizzard]

Depends... if the nation being conquered has a terrible government that they hate, it wouldn't be too hard to conquer it. Maybe bribe some high ranking officials into organizing a coup, if the nation is conquered by its own people it wont look like a foreign invasion, and you can discreetly set up whichever puppet officials you like.

I was going to say genociding an entire nation is likely to get other countries mad at you, but honestly, all it would result in would be high ranking officials making concerned statements and stern warnings and the threat of sanctions, but i doubt anyone would do anything.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I don't think it's very easy to conquer a country these days in the traditional sense of the word. Guerillas will appear within the week and the only way to flush them out is to use scorched earth tactics, which is just one step short of genocide.

The problem is that information spreads really, really fast thanks to TV, radio, newspapers and the Internet (the latter one not as much so in the third world countries, but still). Even if people really hate their government, they may be initially happy to see it gone, but after that they want the country to themselves, not crawling with foreign troops. This will shortly lead to unrest, then to open protest, and when that has no effect, resistance cells will form. Eventually they will unite and go from minor terrorism to an outright liberation movement, especially if they have support of the general populace.

If you want to conquer a country, the first step should be to make the country hate it's government (if it doesn't already). Lots of ways to do that. Then install a puppet government. Easiest way to do this would probably be to offer key government positions to random people in exchange for their loyalty and then either sponsor a coup or take part in one themselves using commandos.

First have the new government fix all the stuff that the old government screwed up to make it popular. When that's done, start flushing out loyalists. Eventually create pro-your country policies. Massive propaganda about how great your country is. Hold a referendum in the "conquered" country joining your country under colony-like status. Shut the hell up all the people who are going to protest. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES USE OVERWHELMING MILITARY MIGHT OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WILL MAKE THE POPULACE HATE YOU.

[Krytha]

uh yeah... planning anything big in the near future?

[Don Julio Anejo]

uh yeah... planning anything big in the near future?
Oh noes! I unwittingly let the world know my evil plan of world domination! :biggrin:

[Solaris]

I don't think it's very easy to conquer a country these days in the traditional sense of the word. Guerillas will appear within the week and the only way to flush them out is to use scorched earth tactics, which is just one step short of genocide.

The problem is that information spreads really, really fast thanks to TV, radio, newspapers and the Internet (the latter one not as much so in the third world countries, but still). Even if people really hate their government, they may be initially happy to see it gone, but after that they want the country to themselves, not crawling with foreign troops. This will shortly lead to unrest, then to open protest, and when that has no effect, resistance cells will form. Eventually they will unite and go from minor terrorism to an outright liberation movement, especially if they have support of the general populace.

If you want to conquer a country, the first step should be to make the country hate it's government (if it doesn't already). Lots of ways to do that. Then install a puppet government. Easiest way to do this would probably be to offer key government positions to random people in exchange for their loyalty and then either sponsor a coup or take part in one themselves using commandos.

First have the new government fix all the stuff that the old government screwed up to make it popular. When that's done, start flushing out loyalists. Eventually create pro-your country policies. Massive propaganda about how great your country is. Hold a referendum in the "conquered" country joining your country under colony-like status. Shut the hell up all the people who are going to protest. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES USE OVERWHELMING MILITARY MIGHT OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WILL MAKE THE POPULACE HATE YOU.

Yes. It's what we're doing over here.
In short, you can conquer a modern country, it just takes time, talent, and patience. More patience from the armed services who have to put up with a popular insurgency without going all Vietnam on the civilian population than the civilian government of the conquering nation.

Genocide, depending on your resources, is surprisingly easy. If you don't mind biological weaponry, you can covertly infect the population with a weaponised disease that has a high rate of contagion, a near-hundred-percent mortality rate, and a short burn rate, thereby assuring near-total extinction without the disease becoming too widespread. The covert agents should be careful to completely saturate the target population - wouldn't want any pesky survivors. After that, send in strike teams to the areas that weren't completely wiped out.
And then send in relief efforts - after all, you wouldn't want people realizing you were the one behind it.

[GoC]

Hmm...
Nationalism is what generaly makes countries hard to conquer, but it wasn't always this way. How can you remove it? Is such a thing possible?

[Don Julio Anejo]

Hmm...
Nationalism is what generaly makes countries hard to conquer, but it wasn't always this way. How can you remove it? Is such a thing possible?
Nationalism slowly disappears if a country is very ethnically diverse. People native to the country may and probably will defend it with their lives, immigrants or children of immigrants rarely have this much patriotism. Chances are they're still torn between their old and new countries.

[mangosta71]

Genocide, depending on your resources, is surprisingly easy. If you don't mind biological weaponry, you can covertly infect the population with a weaponised disease that has a high rate of contagion, a near-hundred-percent mortality rate, and a short burn rate, thereby assuring near-total extinction without the disease becoming too widespread. The covert agents should be careful to completely saturate the target population - wouldn't want any pesky survivors. After that, send in strike teams to the areas that weren't completely wiped out.

Did someone say ebola? Of course, to prevent the spread of the disease, you have to quarantine the area before you release the virus. Wouldn't want someone to pick it up and hop a plane to wherever you are. It's very difficult to make the blockade covert, and you can't use disease as an excuse until people start showing symptoms. But the incubation period is only a couple weeks, so you don't have to stall the UN for long.

[Telonius]

Conquer? Genocide? Why bother with either? Just make friends with the local dictator. In exchange for supplying him with weapons that are second-rate to you, but first-rate in his neighborhood, he'll give you exclusive extraction rights to whatever fuel or mineral is there. And that's really what you want from the country in question, anyway, isn't it?

[mangosta71]

Conquer? Genocide? Why bother with either? Just make friends with the local dictator. In exchange for supplying him with weapons that are second-rate to you, but first-rate in his neighborhood, he'll give you exclusive extraction rights to whatever fuel or mineral is there. And that's really what you want from the country in question, anyway, isn't it?

Why trade when there's more satisfaction in taking it by force?

[TengYt]

I know this is all theoretical and all...but some people in this thread really scare me.:smalleek:

[Don Julio Anejo]

Conquer? Genocide? Why bother with either? Just make friends with the local dictator. In exchange for supplying him with weapons that are second-rate to you, but first-rate in his neighborhood, he'll give you exclusive extraction rights to whatever fuel or mineral is there. And that's really what you want from the country in question, anyway, isn't it?
Depends. If you're China or India, chances are you need lots of empty space for people to settle. Like Siberia.

[13_CBS]

Any leader can order soldiers to kill. Few leaders know how to properly subjugate a place.

Edit: I wonder how this thread has been left open for so long :smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

Any leader can order soldiers to kill. Few leaders know how to properly subjugate a place.

Edit: I wonder how this thread has been left open for so long :smallconfused:

I know, this totally isn't very friendly at all.

[13_CBS]

I know, this totally isn't very friendly at all.

Eh, it just seems as though this thread is dangerously close to entering a banned subject. I have no moral problems talking about whether genocide or subjugation is easier, though.

[hamishspence]

military rather than political aspects of topic?

Though it does seem borderline. I guess its the emphasis that it is purely theoretical, and the avoidance of discussing moral aspect, only the practical, that's saved the topic so far.

[13_CBS]

In that case, genocide is much easier. Take Rwanda: many of the killings were performed by what were essentially angry civilians taking up relatively crude arms against one another. Now imagine if trained soldiers were to do that.

Of course, there is the psychological aspect. Simply ordering normal soldiers to butcher innocent civilians for long periods of time will severely deplete morale, though this can be remedied by hiring mercenaries, or even rounding up civilians and sticking them into efficient death traps, a la the Nazi death camps.

Actually pacifying and controlling a conquered nation takes a lot of political and military skill and effort. PHysical conquest is simple--you just need a bigger gun than the other guy to physically dominate him.

Once a country is conquered, there are basically 2 paths you can take to subjugate it:

1) Make the conquered people love you. Depending on how badly the cultures of the conquerors and the conquered clash, and how gently the country was conquered, this may take a lot of effort or may be nigh impossible in a short period of time. Alexander the Great's heirs managed to keep control over their respective territories this way, mostly by integrating themselves deeply within the population while also convincing the population of the merits of Greek civilization.

2) Keep the conquered people afraid of you. Which is quite easy initially, as the conquered people no longer have an army to keep away yours. Worked for even the Mongols for a good while. However, the population must be kept in FEAR, not HATRED. As the wise Yoda once said, fear leads the hatred, and should the population hate the conquerors enough, the population may arise in rebellion, which is troublesome for the conquerors whether or not the rebels succeed. Conquerors unable to get the population to like them quickly enough may have to deal with lots of rebellions.

All of this is pretty hard to do. A part of the reason why the Roman and Alexander's Empires are so awe-striking (from the perspective of a historian) is how each empire managed to conquer so many people, yet keep them all under the yoke for so long.

Remember: for humans, it's almost always, ALWAYS easier to destroy than to create.

[GoC]

military rather than political aspects of topic?
Pinned it down nicely my friend.:smallsmile:

13_CBS: Would the time honored strategy of having your soldiers marry their women work? At least in countries where women are little valued, with few rights.

[13_CBS]

13_CBS: Would the time honored strategy of having your soldiers marry their women work? At least in countries where women are little valued, with few rights.

I...have no idea. I don't recall a situation in history where intermarriage alone fixed such problems. Though in the long run, it might work (though if the conquering soldiers were particularly brutal against the conquered nation, good luck having having the pretty native girls fall in love with your genocidal soldiers).

[Serpentine]

I've got something to point out with this issue (which is pretty disturbing, really): There are far, far more historic examples of successful conquests than successful genocides. In fact, I seem to recall that the only completely successful, recorded example is the elimination of the Tasmanian aboriginals. I don't think the Armenian got particularly close. Caesar did pretty well at exterminating the Gauls, but I'm pretty sure they survived as an ethnic group.

So, based on that, I'd say that conquest is easier than genocide. It may be easier to kill a person than to make them like you, but it's a lot harder to exterminate an entire bloodline/culture/philosophy.

[RS14]

I've got something to point out with this issue (which is pretty disturbing, really): There are far, far more historic examples of successful conquests than successful genocides. In fact, I seem to recall that the only completely successful, recorded example is the elimination of the Tasmanian aboriginals. I don't think the Armenian got particularly close. Caesar did pretty well at exterminating the Gauls, but I'm pretty sure they survived as an ethnic group.

So, based on that, I'd say that conquest is easier than genocide. It may be easier to kill a person than to make them like you, but it's a lot harder to exterminate an entire bloodline/culture/philosophy.
On the other hand, the benefits for conquest are usually greater than the benefits for genocide. If you just kill everyone, you need to convince people to come settle the land you've taken. If you conquer territory, you can put the people to work right away.


I know this is all theoretical and all...but some people in this thread really scare me.
I was starting to scare myself, to be honest, which is why I've not posted in this thread in a few days.

[Innis Cabal]

I've got something to point out with this issue (which is pretty disturbing, really): There are far, far more historic examples of successful conquests than successful genocides. In fact, I seem to recall that the only completely successful, recorded example is the elimination of the Tasmanian aboriginals. I don't think the Armenian got particularly close. Caesar did pretty well at exterminating the Gauls, but I'm pretty sure they survived as an ethnic group.

So, based on that, I'd say that conquest is easier than genocide. It may be easier to kill a person than to make them like you, but it's a lot harder to exterminate an entire bloodline/culture/philosophy.

The genocide of Carthage comes to mind. Two times and it was a rousing military victory.

Also, the Armenian Genocide was sorta hampered on the fact they evolved into not their country but also a nation.

[13_CBS]

The genocide of Carthage comes to mind. Two times and it was a rousing military victory.


Actually, Serpentine has a point. Aside from the occasional Roman WipeTM, such as of the Gauls (perhaps) and Carthage, I don't think there have been that many historical examples of people actively trying to wipe out another race to the last man, and being successful at it. Granted, in the old days it was probably a better use of resources to simply subjugate the other nation and get tribute from them instead, but still...

However, in modern times, and especially if armies ignore the Geneva Convention, I think a total genocide of a country's population would be quite feasible, provided that the conquerors wipe out and completely blockade the conquered country.


If you have modern weapons and the enemy doesn't (or even if they do but less so) then genocide is easier but probably more expensive (WMDs are not cheap).

As the Rwandan genocides have proved, you don't need modern weaponry to slaughter your fellow man. Machetes and torches are quite effective, given the right conditions.

[Don Julio Anejo]

However, in historical times there have been plenty of examples of conquerors simply wiping out something like a third of the enemy population, to keep those remaining in check. Or slaughtering to the last man people from cities that put up a good fight, or cities/villages that rebelled, etc.

[Innis Cabal]

Actually, Serpentine has a point. Aside from the occasional Roman WipeTM, such as of the Gauls (perhaps) and Carthage, I don't think there have been that many historical examples of people actively trying to wipe out another race to the last man, and being successful at it. Granted, in the old days it was probably a better use of resources to simply subjugate the other nation and get tribute from them instead, but still...

However, in modern times, and especially if armies ignore the Geneva Convention, I think a total genocide of a country's population would be quite feasible, provided that the conquerors wipe out and completely blockade the conquered country.



Bolded is more or less true, but when one did happen it certainly made history.

Marching over a nation was easier when nations were smaller. As nations grew and the ability to kill easier, military conquest became easier but just bombing them into nothing even easier.

Evolution of combat has made alot of things easier.

[13_CBS]

However, in historical times there have been plenty of examples of conquerors simply wiping out something like a third of the enemy population, to keep those remaining in check. Or slaughtering to the last man people from cities that put up a good fight, or cities/villages that rebelled, etc.

See: Mongols. Greatest conquerors in history, IMO.

[Telonius]

Another fairly "successful" genocide: the Iroquois Nations' destruction of the Eriez tribe.

[Vuzzmop]

I'm gonna go with genocide. People's opinions are fickle, death isn't.

[Cleverdan22]

Today, with nuclear weapons and all that, it would be much easier to genocide a country, but back in Roman times, they opted to conquer a country, due to lack of efficient weaponry.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Today, with nuclear weapons and all that, it would be much easier to genocide a country, but back in Roman times, they opted to conquer a country, due to lack of efficient weaponry.
Except when you use nuclear weapons there isn't much of a country left, even if you have your own people to settle and work the land.

Radiation kinda kills any point of gaining the territory.

[Satyr]

Today, I think warfare targeted on total anihilation would be much more difficult than

In many armies in the western industrial world, who would have the military and financial means for such a campaign, starting a genocidal war would probably start a military coup at first. Convincing armies who take pride in a long tradition to defend human rights and democracy against genocidal monsters to participate in a bit of genicide is far from easy. In Germnay, the soldiers are obligated to not follow any orders that wis agreeable with the conventions of Geneve and one witticism within the army goes "I 'll shoot my general before I shoot a civilian". Which is pretty much what you should expect from any soldier. Or, better said, this is the distinction between a soldier and a murderer.

Besides, you face massive civil unrest. Any form of warfare leads to civil unrest in a democratic country, even more so, when it is justified through a violation of the Geneve conventions. In the most extreme forms, this civil unrest can lead to a massive slowdown of the national infrastructure (especially in France, with its long tradition of strikes).

And third, the international community and its pressure which means that a genocidal military campaign would lead to a political, social and (most important) economic isolation. Not counting the completel loss of national prestige and taking rightfully the role of the international ******* (and it is obviously not a good idea to be conscidered the most hated country in the world).

From a purely military perspective, it might be easier to just kill anything that moves, but war is no purely military event anymore, it is a social event and a so vast number of social influences will have aqn impact on it, that a soloey military perspective is positively ignorant and worse.

As a side note, the riots in France had no relation to religion whatsoever. France is one of the most laical countries in Europe. The riots was an expression of the social unrest and the failure of integration policy, mostly caused by the strong focus of the French constituion on equal rights and the complete failure to implement those. Everyperson born in France can automatically gain the French nationality. Every French citizen has the right of education, employment, social security, etc. The country could not implement these guaranteed rights and the urban underclass, which consist to a lerger part of the children of migrants (who are also French citizens with all the constitutional rights those should have), but who have virtually no access to the guaranteed social advance.
Breaking this down to a religious confrontation is not only false, but also extremely dangerous (as it is water on the mills of the fundametalists on all sides).

[Flame of Anor]

Today, with nuclear weapons and all that, it would be much easier to genocide a country, but back in Roman times, they opted to conquer a country, due to lack of efficient weaponry.

They did opt to conquer, but their motive was not lack of weaponry, because they could easily enough salt the fields, burn the towns, and displace the inhabitants. They didn't do this (most of the time) because they wanted their new subjects not to hold a grudge against them, so that they would be productive members of the Empire.

[Karaswanton]

Genocide is not a verb.

[Dr Legostar]

it is much easier to destroy everything in your path than attempt to maintain things in a controlled fashion with resistance cropping up and making your life and supply lines miserable.

Unless you're fighting France, then conquering is easy and efficient.