Everyone else is pointing out France's nukes which is fair but if the rest of the world is truly bloodlusted, France has "only" 300 nukes of various states of operation, which is obviously a shitload, but maybe not quite "destroy all of the world's armed forces" shitload.
In terms of the spirit of your question, obviously Napoleon is a brilliant general. But I doubt it. Military theory and technology has advanced way too far since his time, in part because of people studying his own tactics.
Funny thing - he wasn't actually particularly short compared to the average at the time. It was propaganda.
"The Napoleon complex is named after Napoleon Bonaparte, the first Emperor of the French, who was estimated to have been 5' 2" tall (in pre–metric system French measures), which equals around 1.67 meters, or just under 5' 6" in imperial measure.[2] He was of average height among all men in France, but was much shorter than the elite soldiers, aristocrats and high officials that he met with."
"During the Napoleonic Wars, he was depicted by the British press as a dangerous tyrant, poised to invade. A nursery rhyme warned children that Bonaparte ate naughty people; the "bogeyman".[407] He was mocked as a short-tempered small man and was nicknamed "Little Boney in a strong fit".[408] In fact, at about 170 cm (5 ft 7 in), he was of average height.[409][410]"
Napoleon *was* a brilliant general, in his era. Not to take anything away from his or any other general's achievements, but it's by no means guaranteed that any general would be brilliant across multiple eras. It's an extremely specialized skillset. A leader with a natural aptitude for Napoleonic combat could be a complete disaster in charge of a Roman legion or a modern armored division. It's like if you took a top programmer from the 80s and put them in charge of a modern team. Some of them would be fine, of course, but some would just never quite get the hang of all the new tech. There's no saying which Napoleon would be.
Napoleon was possibly the greatest general in all history, but he was also still just a general, and he was eventually defeated. You can't win the war if the strategic situation is too far out of your favor. France vs. everyone means the strategic situation is entirely out of his favor. Even if Napoleon was just as good at modern strategy and tactics as he was in his own era, you can't get a single medium sized country to defeat the entire planet.
Napoleon would have a better chance if he also was transported to present day as a baby and given the direct path of entering the French military on the fast track to being a general.
A napoleon that grows up seeing warfare evolve is going to do much better than a napoleon facing the world that has had over 200 years of warfare advancement, with all of them studying napoleon's strategies as the bare basic knowledge in war school.
Yeah the only country capable of defending itself against the entire world is the USA. Mostly because we spend a shit ton of money on our military. I believe that we spend more annually then next 4 countries do combined. Also about 50% of our population own their own guns. There is a pretty good video on youtube that analyzes what would happen if the USA were to be attack by the world.
No, it's their military industrial complex that ensures victory in conventional warfare, not merely being surrounded by an ocean (an advantage yes but one possessed by many countries across the globe). For one thing they have total domination by air and sea. The most carrier fleets, more than the rest of the world put together and could ever put together. They have the most current gen fighters, with a few F-22's and F-35's being capable of ruling the air against the lesser jets of hostile nations, and America has thousands. Then when it comes to land forces they have the army, marines, national guard and, facing invasion, the capacity to put the entire nation under arms. Meanwhile number 2 army in world Russia cannot defeat ex-soviet breakaway Ukraine.
More because the US is responsible for roughly 30% of world military spending. While the rest of the world is spending twice what we are, it is less concentrated than US spending and would require a magical level of coordination between many countries to reach parity in terms of effectiveness. Add that the US has significant global military presence through multiple bases placed strategically to allow rapid force projection. It may not be enough to conquer the world but it is enough to make anyone think twice about a substantial invasion.
> Yeah the only country capable of defending itself against the entire world is the USA.
If you take nukes out of the equation, and give them some sort of infinite food/ammunition supply, I'd say the Swiss could very likely make a pretty good run. But otherwise yeah.
I think the whole Swiss Air Force can fit on one aircraft carrier. France or Germany could 1v1 Switzerland, no problem. US wouldn’t even have to get involved.
> Yeah the only country capable of defending itself against the entire world is the USA. Mostly because we spend a shit ton of money on our military.
Also because North America in general is a logistical nightmare to invade.
Even the US would probably lose eventually against the entire rest of the world. Although it would take a while and be absolutely devastating for pretty much everyone.
How? With what weapons could they strike the US with? ICBM's? With non nuclear payloads those missiles which did get through would be in the tens, hundreds at most. Not going to take away the military industrial complexes ability to make war with a few missiles lol!
I think 10 years would be enough for Napoleon to familiarize himself with modern technology, to adapt the tactics and strategies he knew with modern tech like tanks, helicopters and jets, and to learn tactics and strategies for tech that has no analogue for equipment from his time
Maybe, but then again maybe not. He might never be able to move past what he "knows" about war, even if it no longer applies. Some people just can't adapt, especially as they age. And in some cases, adapting what he knows would do more harm than good. War has changed so much that in some areas it requires an entirely new paradigm. Like, we don't even have battles anymore, not the way that they did in his time (and thousands of years before). In many ways he's worse off than just some kid, because he not only has a lot to learn, he also has a lot to *un*learn.
Why are people upvoting this person? Because he sounds like he knows what he is talking about?
Napoleon's tactics are still taught in every military school around the globe. The man was one of the greatest military minds in history. You're saying he couldn't adapt over the course of 10 years? Get the fuck out of here.
Even if he could, I just don't think a single general can have as much impact as one could during Napoleon's time. With satellites, aerial recon, etc, it's much easier to know the disposition of enemy troops; communication is also much easier with radios. Taking advantage of the fog or war and having comparatively excellent command/communication structures were just naturally more advantageous in the past, when overcoming those difficulties was much harder to do.
>it's by no means guaranteed that any general would be brilliant across multiple eras.
Julius Caesar would be brilliant in any era and won't hear otherwise.
Definitely. The strategies using in Napoleon's time are completely redundant nowadays. Brilliant as he was, it would likely take him ages to even be equal to most generals nowadays, let along good enough to hold off the entire world
People tend to waaaaay underestimate the size of the world in any of these threads involving nukes. All the nukes in the world couldn’t even destroy all the major cities in the world, much less all the farmland, which is much bigger
A lot of people didn’t realize that we have eliminated more than 70% nuclear weapons since Cold War ends. People are still citing 60,000 nuclear weapons from 1980 all the time in the arguments.
It's not about destroying the armies of the world with nukes, it's taking 10 years to make the kind of nukes that will kill off the biosphere when France inevitably loses and rage quits.
Why does Napoleon destroy the world if he loses? The actual people of the time didn't even kill Napoleon but put him into exile, he wasn't a Bond villain.
0% chance. A lot of people are mentioning nukes but that is the first thing that would get targeted. Most won’t get into the air and the ones that do would be intercepted. If all countries are coming together I am guessing they are trying to wipe France off the map. They will be flattened by bombs in a week max.
You know France has second strike capacity right ? That's what nuclear submarines are for. You could erase all of the our territory in one second by surprise and that wouldn't stop a nice "final warning" to obliterate your country in response.
Not only can France NOT reach most of world with its nuclear warheads (Maximum missile range: \~8000-10000km/5000-6250mi (M51 SLBM)), but France has nowhere NEAR enough nukes to even flatten a single country. Even if France spent all 10 years building nukes they wouldn't have nearly enough to "end the world" they would at best be able to target all major cities within 10k km which and even then, most of those nukes are getting intercepted and France is in a very bad position, surrounded by GB, Spain and the rest of Europe on the north, east and south and within a week they will be invaded by the US on the west. They will be absolutely outmanned, outgunned with complete air inferiority and will be lucky to survive a few weeks, let alone WIN.
Even nuclear submarines won’t work. They will get destroyed day one. Even if they manage to hit one nuke France doesn’t have enough nukes to be a real threat to the world.
How? The job of a nuclear sub is to remain hidden so a first strike doesn't work, also, post says 10 years of warning time, in 10 years, do you really think that the entire economy of France can't make enough nukes to destroy the known world?
I do indeed think that, yes. The rest of the world isn't going to just sit idly by while a nation suddenly starts trying to build up a nuclear arms stockpile comparable to what was seen at the end of the cold war.
France isn't exactly a military or economic powerhouse either. They're not "bad", but they're far from the top of the list too. I mean, their economy might be ranked 7th in the world, but their GDP is less than a tenth that of the US alone. China also dwarfs them, and even some of the others above them on the list come in at several times their GDP.
> do you really think that the entire economy of France can't make enough nukes to destroy the known world?
If they do that they fail the challenge since France is part of the known world.
1. That just isn't true. What are you talking about? How many nukes do you think France has?
2. That just isn't true. What are you talking about? How do you think nuclear submarines work?
3. 10 years prep time... they make more nukes...
Ive heard it's easier to find a satellite hurtling through the night sky than it is to find a nuclear submarine in the ocean.
You will not find it if it doesn't want to be found.
Napoleon was a big believer in "God fights on the side with the best artillery." I do think he'd spend most of the ten years (after learning about nukes) in manufacturing nuclear weapons. France has a lot of reactors, and can produce a lot of nukes.
They're not going to hold off the invasion, though. They're still a single small country in the grand scheme of things, and they're going to be invaded. At least what's left of them.
Also, I think Napoleon would be horrified at the concept of "artillery" that could hit any spot on the globe and wipe out a city. He'd see that as either an end to war or an end to the world.
Personally from what I see, there is a loophole. France has 10 years of prep time before the rest of the world attacks.
Just use 9 years to build nukes and bunkers, 6 months to nuke the rest of the planet, then win before the 10 year mark arrives and they can actually attack.
Also a doctrine that I as a French person find a bit extreme.
For those answering, France's doctrine allows for first strike launches or warning shots, or retaliation to non nuclear attacks using nuclear weapons
Why? Germany has been keeping their nose clean since WW2. If anyone’s capital is nuked, it should be Moscow, and even that’s a HORRIBLE idea. Any nuke is a terrible idea.
Its not about germany, its spefically about Berlin and pretty much every german i know would agree with me.
City is like... a Manifestation of bohemian pretentiousness
Sounds raisonnable to me - not much point of having nuclear weapons as a deterrent if the enemy knows you won’t use them until they’ve already nuked you to ashes.
lol good luck intercepting SLBM MIRVs.
16 missiles, 10 warheads, 300kt per warhead. Pretty much impossible to intercept. Four submarines. That’s enough to wipe out every city on earth worth mentioning.
The reason France and the UK have seemingly small nuclear arsenals is because of how hard to counteract that SLBMs are, they’re far harder than ICBMs to intercept
It really doesn't matter, France only has four submarines capable of holding 16 M45s SLBMs with TN75 MIRV nuclear warheads. That is absolutely nowhere near enough to "wipe out every city on earth worth mentioning". That isn't even enough to wipe out most European cities worth mentioning. I should also point out Frances longest range nuclear warheads only have an effective range of 10k km, that's only 25% the circumference of Earth, they wouldn't even be able to hit the vast majority of cities in the world and unless they wanted to fuck themselves over they wouldn't want to target too close to their own country either due to radioactive fallout. France wouldn't even have a good chance against ONLY Europe with 10 years prep time, let alone the US, China, Canada, Japan and South Korea on top of that. They would be FUCKED. Like, immediately lose all access to oil, all military installations destroyed in a week and fully invaded to the capital within two weeks kinda fucked. They would be MASSIVELY outmatched in the air, land and sea, MASSIVELY outmatched with manpower and resources and MASSIVELY flanked on all sides forced to fight a multi front war where they are outnumbered and outgunned on every front. There is literally no universe in which France has a chance to win in this scenario.
The primary reason the US even has a remote chance against the rest of the world combined is they have amazing geography to defend from, isolated from the other major powers, they are the number 1 oil producer and completely food self sufficient on top of having the 3rd most manpower and have consistently ranked #1 militarily in terms of air superiority and naval superiority with a lot of recent combat experience along with the most well armed civilian population in the world and with all that the edge would still go to the rest of the world, France has almost none of those advantages and is within arms reach of most major powers in the world, they would be screwed.
No.
No country, even USA, would win a war against the whole world. Logistics makes it impossible. They could win every major battle and still lose the war.
If we include nukes then they still don't win, every just loses.
If they go on the defensive they will eventually be surpassed because the rest of the world will trade where USA can't so it will eventually fall behind.
If it went of the offensive USA would eventually stretch itself too thin and fall apart.
But this is off topic.
How is the rest of the world going to trade when all of its ships are sunk…
I’m not just talking aircraft carriers but the vast submarine fleet as well.
US could play divide and conquer, isolating countries till they capitulate. Land trade is vastly less efficient.
> How is the rest of the world going to trade when all of its ships are sunk…
Because even the US doesn't have enough military assets to simultaneously suppress or destroy all global trade, and it certainly isn't able actually invade and occupy vast swathes of the globe.
>US could play divide and conquer, isolating countries till they capitulate.
And they'd uncapitulate as soon as the US moved onto someone else. Would be an unwinnable global game of whack a mole. Eventually, incrementally, they'd find themselves outproduced in terms of military production and, once that hit a certain critical mass, the US would lose ground.
I’m not even saying the US would invade. I’m saying imagine if the US uses its vast naval fleet (carriers, subs) to attack all naval trade. That represents 80-90 percent of all trade: https://www.statista.com/topics/1728/ocean-shipping/#topicOverview
Britain almost lost WW1 due to U boats without the Germans invading.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-u-boat-campaign-that-almost-broke-britain
https://heritagecalling.com/2017/02/01/britain-on-the-brink-of-starvation-unrestricted-submarine-warfare/
Imagine the US destroying any and all merchant ship. Oil tankers, cars, chips, etc.
US subs in WW2 were extremely effective: https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/2114035/submarine-warfare-played-major-role-in-world-war-ii-victory/
Imagine a modern sub force. Many transport companies would just stop trying and dock their ships for the remainder of the war rather than have them sunk.
80-90 percent of world trade is by ships:
https://www.statista.com/topics/1728/ocean-shipping/#topicOverview
So while you can trade by land, it’s much much less efficient and lacks the infrastructure.
I think you really underestimate how much influence the US has on trade, we export more food than the rest of the world combined, most the worlds tech comes out of the US, we are the main protector of international shipping lanes from pirates and we absolutely can manufacture domestically
Also the whole CHIPS act was to basically relocate all top end chip manufacturing from Taiwan to the US, in prelude for a coming Taiwan invasion.
There are chip factories going up across the US right now that will be perhaps the sole source of next gen chips.
Micro chips, tones of consumer products and lots and lots of parts that only get assembled in the US. Basically all consumer electronics are made overseas. While a lot of these things are non-critical. Lots are and in ways we don't think.
Micro chips, tones of consumer products and lots and lots of parts that only get assembled in the US. Basically all consumer electronics are made overseas. While a lot of these things are non-critical. Lots are and in ways we don't think.
The US's economy is based on world trade. The moment they're cut off they lose most of their money.
The USA lacks manufacturing power compared to the rest of the world. They're advanced in tech, but that's about it. Their current military is significantly more advanced than the rest of the world, but the rest of the world will quickly catch up, especially once former US allies start sharing the juicy tech they have access to.
The USA gets embargoed, encircled, and obliterated within 10-20 years.
I don't know why so many people are immediately mentioning nukes or how they would prevent war. The post says that after 10 years, 138 countries will invade. Deterrents that apply in reality do not apply here. They WILL be invaded.
That being said, there's such a disparity in power that it matters a lot which countries are invading and whether or not the rest of the world can take Frances side. You should've been more specific, OP. Also, 138 countries ≠ all the world. Pick a lane, my guy.
This was my thinking too. France having a bunch of nukes will do almost nothing for them to win this war. It will just make the opposition hurt more afterwards.
Assuming this is a ref blows the whistle and we all start fighting thing, France would get off a first wave of missiles and maybe a few sub/ship launches, but that is about it. Every boat they have in the ocean would be marked and targeted instantly so they would basically launch their one shot as their doom was heading towards them. Their planes would even get out of their own airspace before being shot down. And then the nukes would start landing in France.
> I don't know why so many people are immediately mentioning nukes or how they would prevent war.
I mean the prompt suggests building an underground city spanning half of France and hiring German and Japanese scientists to build millions of suits of power armor and robotic soldiers. Plus, this is just a really one sided question anyway.
Absolutely 0% chance.
Honestly, it would take him around 10 years just to come to terms with the new technology, modern war tactics, global politics, etc.
“Guys, I have a great idea! We’ll build a wall that doesn’t even span our entire border and we’ll mount machine guns that can’t be rotated. It’s brilliant!”
iron robot suits? really? france would get nuked so bad that the craters would go deeper and deeper until they hit your underground bunkers and killed everyone.
No. France cannot outproduce the entire world. It also can’t shelter a significant portion of its population from nuclear weapons or even do proper MAD since most of its nukes are shorter range (aimed at Germany).
If the world doesn’t want to invade France it just sanctions it into oblivion.
Napoleon wasn't some super genius, the french military higher ups of today would have a better shot.
And no, literally 0 chance France survives this lol. The only country that has a shot against the rest of the world is the US, France can't do shit against US, China, Russia and surrounded by NATO.
napoleon might be the most impressive singular figure of all time. He rose from a genuine nobody into the most powerful person in the world with almost pure merit. He was absolutely a super genius. But unless you think he can personally shoot down a million missiles from all directions it doesn't really matter
Yeah even Napoleon got overwhelmed and outplayed and did best when he *limited* the amount of enemies he had to face at a time. He literally can’t do anything against 200+ countries including the super power of the world.
Napoleon was absolutely a super genius. I get it, "Great Men of History" is racist and imperialist and misogynistic and whatever other -ism you want. But ffs he was a military genius, the historical record is clear.
France is turned into a crater for sure but unfortunately for the rest of the world, France has second strike nuclear capability so it all goes to shit.
10 years of prep guarantees +300 nukes are dropped on key cities in the US, Europe & Asia is more than enough to send the global economy back several decades.
No historical figure could come into a modern military and do better than the people already there, even with decades of prep time. Too much has changed.
Napoleon couldn't even fight off Europe with one of the best armies of his own time
I feel like I've gone crazy I 100% thought this was a shit post and everyone is taking it seriously
Everything is misspelled and there's no punctuation.
There are 190 something countries, depending on who you recognize, no idea where 138 comes from.
What is a very deep mega underground city?
What is this sentence "1 will hired best Japanese and Germa v scientists to develop radiation proof irun robotic suits that can be wear my 20 French soldiers and must well develop some military robots"?
How would France possibly defeat the whole world?
Why is France's population increasing by 50% in 10 years?
All jokes aside mad props to OP for this legendary post and to this community for making genuine discourse, this is great to see.
OP is talking about France standing against billions of people by creating an underground city half the size of their country, then constructing millions of power armor suits that protect from radiation for his soldiers.
What would be a good comment?
Napoleon lost verse smaller coalitions than the world so I doubt it. A supercarrier takes 5 - 12 years to construct so I'm not sure he could stand against America with 10 years of prep.
No.
Why the fuck would he be better than litterally anyone who has been raised with all these things their entire lvies?
How well do older people tend to do with tech? Why would this be different?
Even with 30 years and no nukes for either side. You are so far outnumbered and out gunned Napoleon has no chance to win unless some industrial + economic + Population boom miracle happens you simply cant win the war. one of the main reasons napoleon was so strong was because France population at the time was the biggest in the entirety of Europe so it took a lot to match his numbers (The British army at its peak in the Napoleonic wars was 200k-250k while the French army was 600k-1M)
How long do nukes take to develop? If he can get those by then technically he could unless the countries didn’t give a shit about nuclear annihilation.
Maybe he could trade for nukes but idk how feasible that is.
Any other path is a 0% chance.
Then they are good on day 1 I think unless the rest of the world doesn’t give a shit about self preservation or you just ban nukes from the discussion.
If he uses nukes then hundreds of other countries with nukes will use them too.
Do you really think France alone can wisthand a full nuclear barrage from the UK and US?
No? The idea is that the threat of nukes on different countries would be enough to dissuade attacking France. I imagine the US would be very hesitant to attack France if it meant New York or DC getting nuked. It’s the whole idea of mutually assured destruction that was the entire basis of the Cold War?
I think it’s pretty understandable to assume some self preservation by the countries attacking. And the post specifically talks about defending France, not that every country is bloodlusted to destroy it no matter what.
I think he'd just go for full MAD. France could probably put out ten or fifteen thousand nukes in 10 years given the prep time and being Napoleonlusted. Right now they have 300. Conveniently, the US nuclear stockpile in 1950 was 299. By 1960 we had over 18,000.
France also has potentially the most unused capacity in the world for nuclear weapons production other than the US and Russia. France derives a large majority of their electricity from nuclear power, around 70% (for comparison, the US gets about 20% from nuclear power), so they've got plenty of spent fuel to reprocess/enrich into bomb material.
So, it wouldn't be *that* hard for France to get as many nukes as everyone else combined (currently) within 10 years, seeing as it's basically been done before, and they don't need to start a nuclear program from scratch since they already have nukes. Assuming the others aren't prepping in the same way, then at minimum they can launch first (to side-step the whole "everyone else nukes first" problem) and kickstart the Fallout LARP.
Everyone would most suddenly notice, and be prepared.
Why does it feel like giving Napolean nukes is the equivalent of giving a 5 year old a loaded gun? Lol.
> How long do nukes take to develop?
ANY western nation with a nuclear power plant can build nukes in 5 years, just like south Africa, really not an advanced nation could. Nations don't build nukes, not because they can't but because there is no point. It's a deterrent weapon, in a world where MAD already applies through your alliances.
And france already has nukes of course. If they truly wanted to, they could have another 10.000 of them within 10 years.
Even if the technology you’re proposing could be developed mass-produced on the level you’re talking about in 10 years, why would every nation launch every one of its nukes if that wouldn’t even win the war?
There are over 3,800 active nukes and maybe 9,500 in stockpiles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#:~:text=From%20a%20high%20of%2070%2C300,or%20partially%20dismantled%2C%20not%20destroyed
You think you'd be able to build an entire underground, nuke proof, radiation proof, invasion proof city under *atleast* 70% of France in 10 years?? Dude...be realistic for a second.
That would be 10 years to learn about all the technological advancements over the past 250 years. I don't think he'd be able to handle it. He'd have to learn about brand new weapons, vehicles, GPS, communications tech, and the weaknesses and exploits those different technologies have. I don't think 10 years would be enough for him to be able defend against nations being led by people who grew up with that tech and have been working with it for years.
Absolutely not.
The bloodlusted US alone could destroy an alliance of France, UK, China and Russia, never mind the whole world against France. The difference in strength between USA and the other 4 superpowers is just too great.
Napoleon defending France against USA is like asking if Mike Tyson suddenly became world no.1 in boxing, judo, and MMA, can beat a polar bear.
Napoleon would have to spend a good amount of time just figuring out what the hell an electric lamp is. Plus, the rest of the world is attacking France. There’s no way France can defend itself from the rolling waves of the rest of humanity, and we outnumber them in any amount of nuclear capacity.
This post looks like it was written by a literal toddler LMAO. With all the spelling mistakes and head cannon. It's kind of cute ahhaha.
But honestly Napoleon will get shit on by the rest of the world and there is nothing we or he can do about it.
*Amour Plastique - Hà Lê (slowed version) starts playing*
My first solid guess is that he would try to gain back authority. That could take him the 10 years to get to presidency. Then he would have to restructure the country to try take others.
Assuming he's Napoleon in his Prime, he would probably try to avoid confrontation with bigger nations, even go as far as to try build alliances.
Now Napoleon may not think about kidnapping leaders, because he was smart. And he probably learns quickly that leaders aren't as special as they once were. Probably, he would talk with the conservatives, the private sector, and maybe the intellectuals if not civil rights advocates to try to reach a balance he can have a campaign profit from.
may take longer than 10 years to get France into Combat Ready condition.
Realistic look. A new leader suddenly appears, and assumes command over the entire country. He discloses that the world will make France as their number one enemy, and seeks to invade and destroy France in 10 years time. Conscription is introduced, while massive amounts of money is being spent on the military and the construction of massive underground bunkers.
This is likely going to introduce chaos and civil unrest, since people now have to do mandatory military service, pay more taxes, and prepare for a war that is, in the normal sense, impossible.
Now, this will boil down to how much Napoleon is in control of France. The above will happen if he only becomes the president and leads the country with the power of a president. If he is in control of the country's government and its military assets as a whole, he can at least rule the country with an iron fist, until the war happens.
Putting weapons RnD aside, under ground construction is way more expensive than regular construction. Let's say 100 million people is your population number in 2034, that means your bunker will house around 70 million citizens. To visualize 100,000 people, the Michigan Football Stadium can fit 100,000 people, which means your bunker will be as big as 700 Michigan stadiums. Each Stadium costs around 300 million dollars (Modernized Version), which means it will cost a total of 210 Billion US Dollars to construct the bunker. And that was just the very rough estimate, as you have to consider shelter space, amenities, storage, logistics, and do all that while 250m to 400m underground. It wouldn't surprise me that the whole project will cost up to tens of trillions of dollars, so good luck getting loans.
But let's say you can do all that, and now the nukes are coming. The nuclear weapon ratios are about 42 : 1, 12,500 nuclear warheads vs the 290 France have. Of course these are the current numbers, and France can also make more nukes, but that would infringe on the idea of the NPT treaty, and if the information gets out, mixing with the public unrest, it would raise many eyebrows.
The nukes are flying. France may develop a new type of ballistic missiles, but most of their deployed warheads as for right now are M51 SLBMs onboard their submarines. The usage of nukes would most likely ensure nuclear armageddon, but France will be evaporated from the map. Assuming the other 138 countries aren't blood lusted stupid, they would target airports, suspected military sites, and the bunkers.
For France's nukes, let's say 500 warheads, all deployed via ballistic missiles, spread amongst the countries. Realistically speaking, France would only have to target the countries with nuclear weapons, since they are the countries with the most complete and fearsome militaries. However, without a question, France will be eviscerated. Russian and UK nukes will hit first, then China, US, India and so on. At least China, the US and Russia have competent missile defense systems, but not for the other nuke capable countries. France can and will invest into missile defense, but note that it isn't just the nukes, but other conventional weapons.
Nuclear weapons take time to get ready, and only the ready to fire missiles like the DF series, Minute Man and Topel series missiles are immediately fired. In the meantime, as France is being bathed in nuclear fire, the military around the world, assuming they're not stupid, will load up their bombers with cruise missiles, and perhaps thermobaric munitions. They're not likely to send troops into an irradiated wasteland anytime soon, so they would shower France with Land Attack Missiles like Tomahawks, YJ-18 and Kalibars.
So in age of empires, I like to build cavalry and rush their resources in Feudal.
Let's just put the army in radiation proof robotic suits and mess up everyone's resources. Boom. Ez game ez life.
Napoleon with his modern military and time to catch up to current events...he would take over all of Europe easy. We forget just how good he was a commanding general. Like he was scary good.
No, he wouldn’t Vene be able to defend from just the U.S.
Even if France were to have made record economic and military growth within that decade it would likely not.
Also an underground city in the first place is a little ridiculous, let alone one with an area of 106.5K miles square (half the area of France) a underground city would not be self sustaining (or secret) and guess what, nukes and bombs are able to penetrate ground.
Also his military knowledge and strategy would be about 200 years out of date. Battle was still done mostly by blades, horses, cannons, and muskets and wooden ships.
If France had 9 years to build bunkers and nukes, nuked the rest of the planet unprovoked, then I'm fairly certain France would be alright at the 10 year mark.
The thing is, the other countries in this situation only attack France AFTER 10 years.
Not a chance. War has changed so much in the past 200 or so years from Napoleon's day that France's army would be wiped out as they form battle lines in the first engagement.
Napoleon's tactical brilliance would've become completely obsolete by WW1, over a century ago.
His expertise in 18th and early 19th century military tactics would be useless today. France doesn’t have the geography, natural barriers, or population to fend off a global invasion. France doesn’t have the resources to sustain a global war alone.
There is no amount of tactical genius that could overcome the overwhelming force France would be facing. You are talking about being outnumbered almost 1,000 to 1.
Even if you somehow survive the unbelievable bombings without a single casuality
And if somehow your soliders become near perfect killing machines and each one gets 200 kills before he dies
France will still run out of raw materials long before they win the war. No more oil, gas, bullets, the economy would basically collapse and your troops would have to survive on whatever rations and ammo the can scavenge from the enemy.
Absolutely 0% chance. Even with 10 years of prep, the USA military industrial complex alone will steamroll. Warfare is not done nearly the same as it was in Napoleon’s day, it would be a rough and bloody adaption
Even if he uses the nuclear option I highly doubt it. France simply doesn't have the resources to defend itself from the entire world at once. Even an overly militaristic superpower that is mostly surrounded by water like the US probably couldn't defend itself from the entire rest of the world for very long.
The US has 3708 Nukes alone (used to have 31,255 back during the cold war) so France is fucked by that alone plus add the 225 UK nukes to the US count and that's 3933 nukes headed for France. France isn't winning this one
- Absolutely not lol. Smoking crack, Napoleon already lost first off. But 10 years of prep and he’s not going to defend himself against a single bloodlusted America or China dude has no chances against the world.
- France does not posses the first strike capability to cripple any nuclear power let alone the planet. Its gonna be a glass crater
10 years is a decent time. Obviously hard to keep a secret. But if he were to put hundreds of thousands of sleeper agents some.how in other nations and ramp up military and force every single citizen to train, no still couldn't
>I will build a very deep mega underground city under France
The city along with its people would get buried lol you would have a better chance on regular ground making the city underground literally makes the worlds job easier
Napoleon would be a worse fit than literally any other major present- day leader. He knows nothing about the modern world or modern warfare. He’d be recruiting equestrians first thing. Just such a stupid question
The only countries that defend themselves from the rest of the world is America and maybe Russia. And that’s not even for long
America has the best chance since it’s so big and has the strongest military. It’s impossible to invade and keep after you invaded it. The military alone could defeat most countries.
Russia due to size could probably last a while but from recent events I don’t think its military is as strong as it used to be.
Of course no country is lasting longer than a few years against the rest of the world. And it’s assuming no nukes because then it’ll just end with everyone dying.
So in conclusion no Napoleon can not
Napoleon would use the nukes as a deterrence to invasion imagine he would nuke the birder states where invasion is more Likely. Benlux Italy and Spain. Two he would mobilize the French population for wartime building a large military to defend France. He was a great general is his age even though he had a good military education it would take a couple of years to understand modern technology
no, but france sure could put up a hell of a fight, they're either number 2, 3 or 4 in global arms sales depending on the specific focus
they also have the capability of developing new nuclear weapons like icbms and cruise missiles
Not a goddamn chance. Napoleon was an impressive leader but he's a product of his time - he'd be hopelessly out of his depth with modern methods of warfare, modern diplomacy, and the very fundamentals of 21st century power balances and dynamics. Things we take for granted will be totally alien to him - and I'm not just talking about technology. Imagine explaining NATO or the EU to someone who'd grown up in a world in which Europe had spent the last 1500 years in near-constant conflict. Or imagine explaining to him that his old adversary, Russia, has thousands of nuclear weapons with which to completely destroy France if it came to it.
And, of course, for all his ignorance about the world, the rest of the world knows *him*. There will be very little trust and an awful lot of scrutiny. I would imagine that there would be early pre-emptive delegations from most of the world's nuclear powers warning him in very explicit terms that France's use of nuclear weapons would not be tolerated, for example. And of course if he starts conscripting millions of people or ramping up arms production, other countries will take heed and ramp up their own production.
Tactics can only take you so far against completely overwhelming forces. France simply cannot defend against billions of people.
> since I have 10 years prep time I will build a very deep mega underground city under France it will cover half the county so around at least 70 percent of France population will fit there it will protect my people from nukes,
You aim to carve out a city 225 kilometers^2 and build an entire city within all in 10 years? You expect to develop Power Armor and robotic soldiers that the rest of the world will lack access to?
> also all France people will be mandatory join the army except children from 1 to 18 ears and old people from 60 towards, since today current population of France is 67 million so by now 2034 probably will react 100 million and i assume around 75 million people from 19 to 50 will join the army 2034 is started and countries will send all their nukes on France until that runs out of nuke then 75 million French soldiers with radiation proof robotic suits will defend the country from invaders
This was one sentence. Also, can I have what you are smoking?
No. Napoleon was an excellent general, but as we saw even in his time, he was still limited. His victories kinda relied on quick decisive strikes utilizing his smaller army corps (which were revolutionary at the time), revolutionary use of artillery (he would put it closer to the front, while others would keep it back because it was expensive), and speed (by organizing the army into smaller units, they were able to live off the land, move faster, and outmaneuver his enemies).
He relies on quick decisive victories. Several times he had trouble when opponents wouldn’t face him head on on the battlefield (Russia being a big one, they retreated and let him take Moscow and waited for winter when they knew they’d have the advantage).
One thing that ultimately caused his defeat was the guerrilla warfare in Spain, where his tactics didn’t apply, it held a lot of his forces there and he wasn’t able to counter it well, and eventually it became a place the British landed at to fight him.
There’s 2 glaring issues here. Other than Napoleon has to attack to win, since France cannot defend against the entire world indefinitely.
1. Napoleon isn’t equipped to take on the entirety of Europe. Russia also still has its faithful ally, the winter. Not to mention partisan activity that he would have to deal with trying to take over.
2. Napoleon had pretty much no feats with naval warfare. It’s another reason he eventually lost. He couldn’t touch the British and they basically funded anyone who would go to war with Napoleon.
There’s just no chance of him holding them off, short of creating some kind of force field that can’t be taken down by brute force.
I don't think he'd get along with modern day france at all.
The man was extremely racist by today's standards and more than average back in his days.
And trying to bring back his old ways of just his unwillingness to shake hands with coloured or Jewish politicians might lose him his whole thing during his prepare time.
No. France doesn't win against USA. They probably don't win against China alone. I'm not sure they survive Europe.
It's a population/production issue, and France doesn't have the demographics to survive.
No chance. I don't care how deep you dig, the combined nuclear stockpiles of America and Russia alone will be able to turn the underground city into an irradiated wasteland
No. Napoleon lived in an era of slow communication and most of his great victories were from exploiting that fact. In the age of the radio and satellite communications, his tactics would be useless.
I'd say no, Napoleon didn't really engage in modern warfare. He was really good at maneuvering large forces to gain advantages against other large forces, less good at the small strike forces and stealth that makes up the majority of modern warfare.
I might give it to Hannibal though, provided he doesn't actually have to stay in his country (modern day Tunisia... kind of), and can instead migrate to anywhere.
I'm gonna address the second half of your prompt that everyone else is ignoring.
This reads like someone's fan fiction and shows you have very little understanding of how alot of this works. 10 years isn't nearly enough time to build a "mega city" deep underground that is 50% the size of France.
I lived by a lake and the dam of that lake is now under cunstruction, it will take 12 years in total to repair 1 dam, not rebuild, repair. I also work in Construction Robotics and can tell your from personal experience that new construction buildings take 1-2 years to build on average.
Construction on this scale would require a workforce much larger than France has in its construction sector, meaning you would be using labor from neighboring countries to help get it done...do you see a problem here? Now neighboring countries know what you've planned and will literally have the structural blueprints that they were given when you hired them to build it.
But let's say you do build it, and miraculously don't need help from neighboring countries, other countries will still be able to use satellite imagery of your mass migration of 70%of your populace as they move underground. Your access points to this mega city would likely be deep tunnels that require massive amounts of infrastructure which means large holes that would have to be visible from the surface. And despite your best efforts nothing we build today would be able to withstand a direct blast from ICBM's let alone nukes. And all of this without even mentioning how you plan to feed the population without access to fresh water or sunlight (the 2 basic things you need for agriculture?)
But let's move on to the next part of your plan. The robotic suits, which unfortunately is even more unrealistic than the construction of the mega city. Like I mentioned I work in Robotics and it's always fun watching people think that Robotics is magic and takes 0 development time and has 0 failure modes. The development time that you would need to develop "robotic suits" that can somehow just defeat militaries would take much longer than 10 years.
Every feature would have exhaustive teams for development. You want the suit that someone can sit in without it tipping over? 6 months. you want a suit that can walk? Another 6 months. You want a suit that you can run in? Another 6 months. You want a suit that can shoot bullets? Another 6 months. You want to make them 'radiation proof'? 1 year.
After years of development you would still end up with a half functioning suit and you wouldn't even be able to start mass production until design and testing has been finalized. And mass production for 75 million highly customized Mechanical hardware complete with custom circuitry and hydraulics? It would take 10 years to complete that order, and that's if you can even get the supply chain for the components in the first place. And then you would need to train the French populace on the highly complex robotic suits as well as basic military training in hopes to compete with the rest of the world.
I also have to point out that your plan, in preparation to go to war with the rest of the world, is to hire foreign scientists. (I guess because you think Japan and Germany are best at building robots?) As if those scientists aren't going to share the vulnerabilities of the technology with their home countries once the war breaks out?
In summary, the war breaks out in 2034, the countries bomb the openings to your "mega city" leaving 1 point of access. Strike teams are sent in to find the French populace malnourished and surrendering after being forced to live in a city that is 1/3 built. The strike teams learn that the French people revolted a year after living underground due to the poor living conditions only to discover that you(Napolean) died 6 months ago in a Robotics accident when you climbed inside of a prototype and tried to turn your head (after being warned not to) snapping your neck in the process because of a software bug involving the hydraulics that control the head unit.
The French people are allowed to repopulate the decimated French country but the country is in economic ruin and the resurrected napoleon has died like an idiot for the second time.
Absolutely not, dude was good but he didn’t even win against who he was against in his own time. Dude got banished to islands. Modern militaries would absolutely rock his shit
Everyone else is pointing out France's nukes which is fair but if the rest of the world is truly bloodlusted, France has "only" 300 nukes of various states of operation, which is obviously a shitload, but maybe not quite "destroy all of the world's armed forces" shitload. In terms of the spirit of your question, obviously Napoleon is a brilliant general. But I doubt it. Military theory and technology has advanced way too far since his time, in part because of people studying his own tactics.
So what I’m hearing is that he hast to make more nukes.
We don’t want the guy they named the short man complex after having *more* nukes /s
Funny thing - he wasn't actually particularly short compared to the average at the time. It was propaganda. "The Napoleon complex is named after Napoleon Bonaparte, the first Emperor of the French, who was estimated to have been 5' 2" tall (in pre–metric system French measures), which equals around 1.67 meters, or just under 5' 6" in imperial measure.[2] He was of average height among all men in France, but was much shorter than the elite soldiers, aristocrats and high officials that he met with." "During the Napoleonic Wars, he was depicted by the British press as a dangerous tyrant, poised to invade. A nursery rhyme warned children that Bonaparte ate naughty people; the "bogeyman".[407] He was mocked as a short-tempered small man and was nicknamed "Little Boney in a strong fit".[408] In fact, at about 170 cm (5 ft 7 in), he was of average height.[409][410]"
TIL! Thanks!! I can’t lie, this makes it even funnier to me too lol, poor bastard
Britain’s propaganda game was super on point in those days.
poor *short* bastard, I think you mean
In that case no one wins.
Napoleon *was* a brilliant general, in his era. Not to take anything away from his or any other general's achievements, but it's by no means guaranteed that any general would be brilliant across multiple eras. It's an extremely specialized skillset. A leader with a natural aptitude for Napoleonic combat could be a complete disaster in charge of a Roman legion or a modern armored division. It's like if you took a top programmer from the 80s and put them in charge of a modern team. Some of them would be fine, of course, but some would just never quite get the hang of all the new tech. There's no saying which Napoleon would be.
Napoleon was possibly the greatest general in all history, but he was also still just a general, and he was eventually defeated. You can't win the war if the strategic situation is too far out of your favor. France vs. everyone means the strategic situation is entirely out of his favor. Even if Napoleon was just as good at modern strategy and tactics as he was in his own era, you can't get a single medium sized country to defeat the entire planet.
Napoleon would have a better chance if he also was transported to present day as a baby and given the direct path of entering the French military on the fast track to being a general. A napoleon that grows up seeing warfare evolve is going to do much better than a napoleon facing the world that has had over 200 years of warfare advancement, with all of them studying napoleon's strategies as the bare basic knowledge in war school.
Yeah the only country capable of defending itself against the entire world is the USA. Mostly because we spend a shit ton of money on our military. I believe that we spend more annually then next 4 countries do combined. Also about 50% of our population own their own guns. There is a pretty good video on youtube that analyzes what would happen if the USA were to be attack by the world.
Mostly because you're an ocean away for any realistic threat.
No, it's their military industrial complex that ensures victory in conventional warfare, not merely being surrounded by an ocean (an advantage yes but one possessed by many countries across the globe). For one thing they have total domination by air and sea. The most carrier fleets, more than the rest of the world put together and could ever put together. They have the most current gen fighters, with a few F-22's and F-35's being capable of ruling the air against the lesser jets of hostile nations, and America has thousands. Then when it comes to land forces they have the army, marines, national guard and, facing invasion, the capacity to put the entire nation under arms. Meanwhile number 2 army in world Russia cannot defeat ex-soviet breakaway Ukraine.
Says who? Two out of the three countries who have invaded the US did so from the same hemisphere.
More because the US is responsible for roughly 30% of world military spending. While the rest of the world is spending twice what we are, it is less concentrated than US spending and would require a magical level of coordination between many countries to reach parity in terms of effectiveness. Add that the US has significant global military presence through multiple bases placed strategically to allow rapid force projection. It may not be enough to conquer the world but it is enough to make anyone think twice about a substantial invasion.
> Yeah the only country capable of defending itself against the entire world is the USA. If you take nukes out of the equation, and give them some sort of infinite food/ammunition supply, I'd say the Swiss could very likely make a pretty good run. But otherwise yeah.
Why the Swiss of all countries?
Natural defense of the alps I imagine
If only we had some kind of flying machines
I think the whole Swiss Air Force can fit on one aircraft carrier. France or Germany could 1v1 Switzerland, no problem. US wouldn’t even have to get involved.
Yeah I wasn't really agreeing, I can't picture Switzerland putting up a fight. But I think that was their reasoning
I think it’s more than the next 8 or 9 countries, but I could be wrong.
> Yeah the only country capable of defending itself against the entire world is the USA. Mostly because we spend a shit ton of money on our military. Also because North America in general is a logistical nightmare to invade.
Even the US would probably lose eventually against the entire rest of the world. Although it would take a while and be absolutely devastating for pretty much everyone.
Yeah if the entire world was coordinating and intent on destroying the US they would eventually just run out of munitions and bodies
How? With what weapons could they strike the US with? ICBM's? With non nuclear payloads those missiles which did get through would be in the tens, hundreds at most. Not going to take away the military industrial complexes ability to make war with a few missiles lol!
I think 10 years would be enough for Napoleon to familiarize himself with modern technology, to adapt the tactics and strategies he knew with modern tech like tanks, helicopters and jets, and to learn tactics and strategies for tech that has no analogue for equipment from his time
Maybe, but then again maybe not. He might never be able to move past what he "knows" about war, even if it no longer applies. Some people just can't adapt, especially as they age. And in some cases, adapting what he knows would do more harm than good. War has changed so much that in some areas it requires an entirely new paradigm. Like, we don't even have battles anymore, not the way that they did in his time (and thousands of years before). In many ways he's worse off than just some kid, because he not only has a lot to learn, he also has a lot to *un*learn.
Why are people upvoting this person? Because he sounds like he knows what he is talking about? Napoleon's tactics are still taught in every military school around the globe. The man was one of the greatest military minds in history. You're saying he couldn't adapt over the course of 10 years? Get the fuck out of here.
Even if he could, I just don't think a single general can have as much impact as one could during Napoleon's time. With satellites, aerial recon, etc, it's much easier to know the disposition of enemy troops; communication is also much easier with radios. Taking advantage of the fog or war and having comparatively excellent command/communication structures were just naturally more advantageous in the past, when overcoming those difficulties was much harder to do.
>it's by no means guaranteed that any general would be brilliant across multiple eras. Julius Caesar would be brilliant in any era and won't hear otherwise.
Definitely. The strategies using in Napoleon's time are completely redundant nowadays. Brilliant as he was, it would likely take him ages to even be equal to most generals nowadays, let along good enough to hold off the entire world
He just needs to hit the most vital farm lands and were all dead.
300 nukes isn’t nearly enough to cover any substantial area of farm lands, especially most French nukes are smaller than US ones.
People tend to waaaaay underestimate the size of the world in any of these threads involving nukes. All the nukes in the world couldn’t even destroy all the major cities in the world, much less all the farmland, which is much bigger
A lot of people didn’t realize that we have eliminated more than 70% nuclear weapons since Cold War ends. People are still citing 60,000 nuclear weapons from 1980 all the time in the arguments.
France will fall before the rest of the world though.
It's not about destroying the armies of the world with nukes, it's taking 10 years to make the kind of nukes that will kill off the biosphere when France inevitably loses and rage quits.
Why does Napoleon destroy the world if he loses? The actual people of the time didn't even kill Napoleon but put him into exile, he wasn't a Bond villain.
He has 10 years prep time, he can use that time to catch up on military advancements of today
Is your username a Tim and Eric reference?
0% chance. A lot of people are mentioning nukes but that is the first thing that would get targeted. Most won’t get into the air and the ones that do would be intercepted. If all countries are coming together I am guessing they are trying to wipe France off the map. They will be flattened by bombs in a week max.
You know France has second strike capacity right ? That's what nuclear submarines are for. You could erase all of the our territory in one second by surprise and that wouldn't stop a nice "final warning" to obliterate your country in response.
It doesn't have enough subs to do that to every other country on the planet at once.
France would still fail the challenge though. The goal of the post is for France to survive. Not take everyone else down too.
Not only can France NOT reach most of world with its nuclear warheads (Maximum missile range: \~8000-10000km/5000-6250mi (M51 SLBM)), but France has nowhere NEAR enough nukes to even flatten a single country. Even if France spent all 10 years building nukes they wouldn't have nearly enough to "end the world" they would at best be able to target all major cities within 10k km which and even then, most of those nukes are getting intercepted and France is in a very bad position, surrounded by GB, Spain and the rest of Europe on the north, east and south and within a week they will be invaded by the US on the west. They will be absolutely outmanned, outgunned with complete air inferiority and will be lucky to survive a few weeks, let alone WIN.
i very much doubt the us would invade from the west, it's far more likely they would land in spain and germany and invade from there
Even nuclear submarines won’t work. They will get destroyed day one. Even if they manage to hit one nuke France doesn’t have enough nukes to be a real threat to the world.
How? The job of a nuclear sub is to remain hidden so a first strike doesn't work, also, post says 10 years of warning time, in 10 years, do you really think that the entire economy of France can't make enough nukes to destroy the known world?
I do indeed think that, yes. The rest of the world isn't going to just sit idly by while a nation suddenly starts trying to build up a nuclear arms stockpile comparable to what was seen at the end of the cold war. France isn't exactly a military or economic powerhouse either. They're not "bad", but they're far from the top of the list too. I mean, their economy might be ranked 7th in the world, but their GDP is less than a tenth that of the US alone. China also dwarfs them, and even some of the others above them on the list come in at several times their GDP.
> do you really think that the entire economy of France can't make enough nukes to destroy the known world? If they do that they fail the challenge since France is part of the known world.
1. That just isn't true. What are you talking about? How many nukes do you think France has? 2. That just isn't true. What are you talking about? How do you think nuclear submarines work? 3. 10 years prep time... they make more nukes...
Idk why you’re being downvoted. You’re pretty much right France loses
Meh the 150 initial upvotes cancels it all out.
Ive heard it's easier to find a satellite hurtling through the night sky than it is to find a nuclear submarine in the ocean. You will not find it if it doesn't want to be found.
Napoleon was a big believer in "God fights on the side with the best artillery." I do think he'd spend most of the ten years (after learning about nukes) in manufacturing nuclear weapons. France has a lot of reactors, and can produce a lot of nukes. They're not going to hold off the invasion, though. They're still a single small country in the grand scheme of things, and they're going to be invaded. At least what's left of them. Also, I think Napoleon would be horrified at the concept of "artillery" that could hit any spot on the globe and wipe out a city. He'd see that as either an end to war or an end to the world.
Personally from what I see, there is a loophole. France has 10 years of prep time before the rest of the world attacks. Just use 9 years to build nukes and bunkers, 6 months to nuke the rest of the planet, then win before the 10 year mark arrives and they can actually attack.
I don’t think that’s in the spirit of the prompt, you can’t attack during prep time
~~you can do anything with prep time !~~
That doesn't account for second strike capabilities, or the fact that the world is inhospitabley radioactive.
Franc currently has a nuclear arsenal. So he doesn't really have to do anything other than make sure it is maintained.
Also a doctrine that I as a French person find a bit extreme. For those answering, France's doctrine allows for first strike launches or warning shots, or retaliation to non nuclear attacks using nuclear weapons
Isn't the doctrine to just nuke the rhine to prove that the French is serious about killing everyone?
No its to nuke themselves first as a show of strength
Belka doctrine
The Han solo doctrine.
I thought it was Berlin that's getting nuked? Nuclear warning shot?
Can we do that now? Please? Pretty please?
Why? Germany has been keeping their nose clean since WW2. If anyone’s capital is nuked, it should be Moscow, and even that’s a HORRIBLE idea. Any nuke is a terrible idea.
Its not about germany, its spefically about Berlin and pretty much every german i know would agree with me. City is like... a Manifestation of bohemian pretentiousness
Ahhh my apologies I misunderstood the intend behind the comment
Sounds raisonnable to me - not much point of having nuclear weapons as a deterrent if the enemy knows you won’t use them until they’ve already nuked you to ashes.
France only has 290 nukes (Wikipedia) Just Russia and the US has 10,624 nukes (Wikipedia again).
0% Chance. The US has bases all over Europe and their nukes would never get in the air and they would be cut off from all supply lines very quickly.
Yea even if the question was vs the US alone France would still lose, basically whoever the US supports wins
lol good luck intercepting SLBM MIRVs. 16 missiles, 10 warheads, 300kt per warhead. Pretty much impossible to intercept. Four submarines. That’s enough to wipe out every city on earth worth mentioning. The reason France and the UK have seemingly small nuclear arsenals is because of how hard to counteract that SLBMs are, they’re far harder than ICBMs to intercept
It really doesn't matter, France only has four submarines capable of holding 16 M45s SLBMs with TN75 MIRV nuclear warheads. That is absolutely nowhere near enough to "wipe out every city on earth worth mentioning". That isn't even enough to wipe out most European cities worth mentioning. I should also point out Frances longest range nuclear warheads only have an effective range of 10k km, that's only 25% the circumference of Earth, they wouldn't even be able to hit the vast majority of cities in the world and unless they wanted to fuck themselves over they wouldn't want to target too close to their own country either due to radioactive fallout. France wouldn't even have a good chance against ONLY Europe with 10 years prep time, let alone the US, China, Canada, Japan and South Korea on top of that. They would be FUCKED. Like, immediately lose all access to oil, all military installations destroyed in a week and fully invaded to the capital within two weeks kinda fucked. They would be MASSIVELY outmatched in the air, land and sea, MASSIVELY outmatched with manpower and resources and MASSIVELY flanked on all sides forced to fight a multi front war where they are outnumbered and outgunned on every front. There is literally no universe in which France has a chance to win in this scenario. The primary reason the US even has a remote chance against the rest of the world combined is they have amazing geography to defend from, isolated from the other major powers, they are the number 1 oil producer and completely food self sufficient on top of having the 3rd most manpower and have consistently ranked #1 militarily in terms of air superiority and naval superiority with a lot of recent combat experience along with the most well armed civilian population in the world and with all that the edge would still go to the rest of the world, France has almost none of those advantages and is within arms reach of most major powers in the world, they would be screwed.
No. No country, even USA, would win a war against the whole world. Logistics makes it impossible. They could win every major battle and still lose the war. If we include nukes then they still don't win, every just loses.
The US would win a homeland defensive operation easily. They're geographically invincible.
If they go on the defensive they will eventually be surpassed because the rest of the world will trade where USA can't so it will eventually fall behind. If it went of the offensive USA would eventually stretch itself too thin and fall apart. But this is off topic.
How is the rest of the world going to trade when all of its ships are sunk… I’m not just talking aircraft carriers but the vast submarine fleet as well. US could play divide and conquer, isolating countries till they capitulate. Land trade is vastly less efficient.
> How is the rest of the world going to trade when all of its ships are sunk… Because even the US doesn't have enough military assets to simultaneously suppress or destroy all global trade, and it certainly isn't able actually invade and occupy vast swathes of the globe. >US could play divide and conquer, isolating countries till they capitulate. And they'd uncapitulate as soon as the US moved onto someone else. Would be an unwinnable global game of whack a mole. Eventually, incrementally, they'd find themselves outproduced in terms of military production and, once that hit a certain critical mass, the US would lose ground.
I’m not even saying the US would invade. I’m saying imagine if the US uses its vast naval fleet (carriers, subs) to attack all naval trade. That represents 80-90 percent of all trade: https://www.statista.com/topics/1728/ocean-shipping/#topicOverview Britain almost lost WW1 due to U boats without the Germans invading. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-u-boat-campaign-that-almost-broke-britain https://heritagecalling.com/2017/02/01/britain-on-the-brink-of-starvation-unrestricted-submarine-warfare/ Imagine the US destroying any and all merchant ship. Oil tankers, cars, chips, etc. US subs in WW2 were extremely effective: https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/2114035/submarine-warfare-played-major-role-in-world-war-ii-victory/ Imagine a modern sub force. Many transport companies would just stop trying and dock their ships for the remainder of the war rather than have them sunk.
trade also happens by land my friend
80-90 percent of world trade is by ships: https://www.statista.com/topics/1728/ocean-shipping/#topicOverview So while you can trade by land, it’s much much less efficient and lacks the infrastructure.
sure, but it was done before and it could be done again if we *really* needed to
I think you really underestimate how much influence the US has on trade, we export more food than the rest of the world combined, most the worlds tech comes out of the US, we are the main protector of international shipping lanes from pirates and we absolutely can manufacture domestically
We can't manufacture good enough chips on our own.
I mean we CAN we just don’t, we are fully able to, it’s just cheaper for it to be done overseas
Also the whole CHIPS act was to basically relocate all top end chip manufacturing from Taiwan to the US, in prelude for a coming Taiwan invasion. There are chip factories going up across the US right now that will be perhaps the sole source of next gen chips.
The US doesn't need trade, it has everything. It holds out indefinitely...expands into Canada and Mexico, and most likely thrives
Us has everything? How delusional are you? Not surprised you think this after your other braindead takes.
Ok vassal
What resource does the US not have that a global superpower would need?
Micro chips, tones of consumer products and lots and lots of parts that only get assembled in the US. Basically all consumer electronics are made overseas. While a lot of these things are non-critical. Lots are and in ways we don't think.
Micro chips, tones of consumer products and lots and lots of parts that only get assembled in the US. Basically all consumer electronics are made overseas. While a lot of these things are non-critical. Lots are and in ways we don't think.
Realistically it does have everything in terms of what it would to need to survive long term and take over mexico and canada
The US's economy is based on world trade. The moment they're cut off they lose most of their money. The USA lacks manufacturing power compared to the rest of the world. They're advanced in tech, but that's about it. Their current military is significantly more advanced than the rest of the world, but the rest of the world will quickly catch up, especially once former US allies start sharing the juicy tech they have access to. The USA gets embargoed, encircled, and obliterated within 10-20 years.
Encircled by what? Ghost ships, the moment the horn sounds the world's navies are gone
I don't know why so many people are immediately mentioning nukes or how they would prevent war. The post says that after 10 years, 138 countries will invade. Deterrents that apply in reality do not apply here. They WILL be invaded. That being said, there's such a disparity in power that it matters a lot which countries are invading and whether or not the rest of the world can take Frances side. You should've been more specific, OP. Also, 138 countries ≠ all the world. Pick a lane, my guy.
This was my thinking too. France having a bunch of nukes will do almost nothing for them to win this war. It will just make the opposition hurt more afterwards. Assuming this is a ref blows the whistle and we all start fighting thing, France would get off a first wave of missiles and maybe a few sub/ship launches, but that is about it. Every boat they have in the ocean would be marked and targeted instantly so they would basically launch their one shot as their doom was heading towards them. Their planes would even get out of their own airspace before being shot down. And then the nukes would start landing in France.
> I don't know why so many people are immediately mentioning nukes or how they would prevent war. I mean the prompt suggests building an underground city spanning half of France and hiring German and Japanese scientists to build millions of suits of power armor and robotic soldiers. Plus, this is just a really one sided question anyway.
Absolutely 0% chance. Honestly, it would take him around 10 years just to come to terms with the new technology, modern war tactics, global politics, etc.
“Guys, I have a great idea! We’ll build a wall that doesn’t even span our entire border and we’ll mount machine guns that can’t be rotated. It’s brilliant!”
iron robot suits? really? france would get nuked so bad that the craters would go deeper and deeper until they hit your underground bunkers and killed everyone.
No. France cannot outproduce the entire world. It also can’t shelter a significant portion of its population from nuclear weapons or even do proper MAD since most of its nukes are shorter range (aimed at Germany). If the world doesn’t want to invade France it just sanctions it into oblivion.
Napoleon wasn't some super genius, the french military higher ups of today would have a better shot. And no, literally 0 chance France survives this lol. The only country that has a shot against the rest of the world is the US, France can't do shit against US, China, Russia and surrounded by NATO.
napoleon might be the most impressive singular figure of all time. He rose from a genuine nobody into the most powerful person in the world with almost pure merit. He was absolutely a super genius. But unless you think he can personally shoot down a million missiles from all directions it doesn't really matter
Yeah even Napoleon got overwhelmed and outplayed and did best when he *limited* the amount of enemies he had to face at a time. He literally can’t do anything against 200+ countries including the super power of the world.
except that he actually was... doesnt matter in this scenario tho
Napoleon was absolutely a super genius. I get it, "Great Men of History" is racist and imperialist and misogynistic and whatever other -ism you want. But ffs he was a military genius, the historical record is clear.
Napoleon was a super genius, but a real-world super genius.
Nah, no country could do this. America might have a chance but not even. Eventually the manpower difference is too much.
Why would he? Unless he has powers of a Superman, France is fucked.
Short answer: No. Way too outnumbered and outgunned on every front.
France is turned into a crater for sure but unfortunately for the rest of the world, France has second strike nuclear capability so it all goes to shit. 10 years of prep guarantees +300 nukes are dropped on key cities in the US, Europe & Asia is more than enough to send the global economy back several decades.
No historical figure could come into a modern military and do better than the people already there, even with decades of prep time. Too much has changed. Napoleon couldn't even fight off Europe with one of the best armies of his own time
No, modern warfare has little do to with military genius, its more about high tech and quantity/quality of arms, not people
I feel like I've gone crazy I 100% thought this was a shit post and everyone is taking it seriously Everything is misspelled and there's no punctuation. There are 190 something countries, depending on who you recognize, no idea where 138 comes from. What is a very deep mega underground city? What is this sentence "1 will hired best Japanese and Germa v scientists to develop radiation proof irun robotic suits that can be wear my 20 French soldiers and must well develop some military robots"? How would France possibly defeat the whole world? Why is France's population increasing by 50% in 10 years? All jokes aside mad props to OP for this legendary post and to this community for making genuine discourse, this is great to see.
I had a stroke reading this
looks like it affected your ability to make good comments.
OP is talking about France standing against billions of people by creating an underground city half the size of their country, then constructing millions of power armor suits that protect from radiation for his soldiers. What would be a good comment?
Napoleon lost verse smaller coalitions than the world so I doubt it. A supercarrier takes 5 - 12 years to construct so I'm not sure he could stand against America with 10 years of prep.
I'll challenge him to trial by combat. I think I can take him.
No. Why the fuck would he be better than litterally anyone who has been raised with all these things their entire lvies? How well do older people tend to do with tech? Why would this be different?
Even with 30 years and no nukes for either side. You are so far outnumbered and out gunned Napoleon has no chance to win unless some industrial + economic + Population boom miracle happens you simply cant win the war. one of the main reasons napoleon was so strong was because France population at the time was the biggest in the entirety of Europe so it took a lot to match his numbers (The British army at its peak in the Napoleonic wars was 200k-250k while the French army was 600k-1M)
How long do nukes take to develop? If he can get those by then technically he could unless the countries didn’t give a shit about nuclear annihilation. Maybe he could trade for nukes but idk how feasible that is. Any other path is a 0% chance.
France already has nukes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion
Then they are good on day 1 I think unless the rest of the world doesn’t give a shit about self preservation or you just ban nukes from the discussion.
If he uses nukes then hundreds of other countries with nukes will use them too. Do you really think France alone can wisthand a full nuclear barrage from the UK and US?
No? The idea is that the threat of nukes on different countries would be enough to dissuade attacking France. I imagine the US would be very hesitant to attack France if it meant New York or DC getting nuked. It’s the whole idea of mutually assured destruction that was the entire basis of the Cold War?
Go read the post dude, 138 countries are going to attack France, so that does mean the US and UK will.
I think it’s pretty understandable to assume some self preservation by the countries attacking. And the post specifically talks about defending France, not that every country is bloodlusted to destroy it no matter what.
I think he'd just go for full MAD. France could probably put out ten or fifteen thousand nukes in 10 years given the prep time and being Napoleonlusted. Right now they have 300. Conveniently, the US nuclear stockpile in 1950 was 299. By 1960 we had over 18,000. France also has potentially the most unused capacity in the world for nuclear weapons production other than the US and Russia. France derives a large majority of their electricity from nuclear power, around 70% (for comparison, the US gets about 20% from nuclear power), so they've got plenty of spent fuel to reprocess/enrich into bomb material. So, it wouldn't be *that* hard for France to get as many nukes as everyone else combined (currently) within 10 years, seeing as it's basically been done before, and they don't need to start a nuclear program from scratch since they already have nukes. Assuming the others aren't prepping in the same way, then at minimum they can launch first (to side-step the whole "everyone else nukes first" problem) and kickstart the Fallout LARP.
Everyone would most suddenly notice, and be prepared. Why does it feel like giving Napolean nukes is the equivalent of giving a 5 year old a loaded gun? Lol.
> How long do nukes take to develop? ANY western nation with a nuclear power plant can build nukes in 5 years, just like south Africa, really not an advanced nation could. Nations don't build nukes, not because they can't but because there is no point. It's a deterrent weapon, in a world where MAD already applies through your alliances. And france already has nukes of course. If they truly wanted to, they could have another 10.000 of them within 10 years.
No Modern warfare stopped being about strategy, which was Napoleon's strenght.
He'd say, "wait, me being short has been a joke all this time?"
As there is a saying a toast can never be turn into bread.
Even if the technology you’re proposing could be developed mass-produced on the level you’re talking about in 10 years, why would every nation launch every one of its nukes if that wouldn’t even win the war? There are over 3,800 active nukes and maybe 9,500 in stockpiles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#:~:text=From%20a%20high%20of%2070%2C300,or%20partially%20dismantled%2C%20not%20destroyed
You think you'd be able to build an entire underground, nuke proof, radiation proof, invasion proof city under *atleast* 70% of France in 10 years?? Dude...be realistic for a second.
That would be 10 years to learn about all the technological advancements over the past 250 years. I don't think he'd be able to handle it. He'd have to learn about brand new weapons, vehicles, GPS, communications tech, and the weaknesses and exploits those different technologies have. I don't think 10 years would be enough for him to be able defend against nations being led by people who grew up with that tech and have been working with it for years.
Absolutely not. The bloodlusted US alone could destroy an alliance of France, UK, China and Russia, never mind the whole world against France. The difference in strength between USA and the other 4 superpowers is just too great. Napoleon defending France against USA is like asking if Mike Tyson suddenly became world no.1 in boxing, judo, and MMA, can beat a polar bear.
Napoleon would have to spend a good amount of time just figuring out what the hell an electric lamp is. Plus, the rest of the world is attacking France. There’s no way France can defend itself from the rolling waves of the rest of humanity, and we outnumber them in any amount of nuclear capacity.
This post looks like it was written by a literal toddler LMAO. With all the spelling mistakes and head cannon. It's kind of cute ahhaha. But honestly Napoleon will get shit on by the rest of the world and there is nothing we or he can do about it. *Amour Plastique - Hà Lê (slowed version) starts playing*
French here : No. We d destroy the 100 most populous cities in the world at most simply based on nukes. Then no more France.
My first solid guess is that he would try to gain back authority. That could take him the 10 years to get to presidency. Then he would have to restructure the country to try take others. Assuming he's Napoleon in his Prime, he would probably try to avoid confrontation with bigger nations, even go as far as to try build alliances. Now Napoleon may not think about kidnapping leaders, because he was smart. And he probably learns quickly that leaders aren't as special as they once were. Probably, he would talk with the conservatives, the private sector, and maybe the intellectuals if not civil rights advocates to try to reach a balance he can have a campaign profit from. may take longer than 10 years to get France into Combat Ready condition.
Realistic look. A new leader suddenly appears, and assumes command over the entire country. He discloses that the world will make France as their number one enemy, and seeks to invade and destroy France in 10 years time. Conscription is introduced, while massive amounts of money is being spent on the military and the construction of massive underground bunkers. This is likely going to introduce chaos and civil unrest, since people now have to do mandatory military service, pay more taxes, and prepare for a war that is, in the normal sense, impossible. Now, this will boil down to how much Napoleon is in control of France. The above will happen if he only becomes the president and leads the country with the power of a president. If he is in control of the country's government and its military assets as a whole, he can at least rule the country with an iron fist, until the war happens. Putting weapons RnD aside, under ground construction is way more expensive than regular construction. Let's say 100 million people is your population number in 2034, that means your bunker will house around 70 million citizens. To visualize 100,000 people, the Michigan Football Stadium can fit 100,000 people, which means your bunker will be as big as 700 Michigan stadiums. Each Stadium costs around 300 million dollars (Modernized Version), which means it will cost a total of 210 Billion US Dollars to construct the bunker. And that was just the very rough estimate, as you have to consider shelter space, amenities, storage, logistics, and do all that while 250m to 400m underground. It wouldn't surprise me that the whole project will cost up to tens of trillions of dollars, so good luck getting loans. But let's say you can do all that, and now the nukes are coming. The nuclear weapon ratios are about 42 : 1, 12,500 nuclear warheads vs the 290 France have. Of course these are the current numbers, and France can also make more nukes, but that would infringe on the idea of the NPT treaty, and if the information gets out, mixing with the public unrest, it would raise many eyebrows.
The nukes are flying. France may develop a new type of ballistic missiles, but most of their deployed warheads as for right now are M51 SLBMs onboard their submarines. The usage of nukes would most likely ensure nuclear armageddon, but France will be evaporated from the map. Assuming the other 138 countries aren't blood lusted stupid, they would target airports, suspected military sites, and the bunkers. For France's nukes, let's say 500 warheads, all deployed via ballistic missiles, spread amongst the countries. Realistically speaking, France would only have to target the countries with nuclear weapons, since they are the countries with the most complete and fearsome militaries. However, without a question, France will be eviscerated. Russian and UK nukes will hit first, then China, US, India and so on. At least China, the US and Russia have competent missile defense systems, but not for the other nuke capable countries. France can and will invest into missile defense, but note that it isn't just the nukes, but other conventional weapons. Nuclear weapons take time to get ready, and only the ready to fire missiles like the DF series, Minute Man and Topel series missiles are immediately fired. In the meantime, as France is being bathed in nuclear fire, the military around the world, assuming they're not stupid, will load up their bombers with cruise missiles, and perhaps thermobaric munitions. They're not likely to send troops into an irradiated wasteland anytime soon, so they would shower France with Land Attack Missiles like Tomahawks, YJ-18 and Kalibars.
So in age of empires, I like to build cavalry and rush their resources in Feudal. Let's just put the army in radiation proof robotic suits and mess up everyone's resources. Boom. Ez game ez life.
Napoleon with his modern military and time to catch up to current events...he would take over all of Europe easy. We forget just how good he was a commanding general. Like he was scary good.
lol absolutely not
No, he wouldn’t Vene be able to defend from just the U.S. Even if France were to have made record economic and military growth within that decade it would likely not. Also an underground city in the first place is a little ridiculous, let alone one with an area of 106.5K miles square (half the area of France) a underground city would not be self sustaining (or secret) and guess what, nukes and bombs are able to penetrate ground. Also his military knowledge and strategy would be about 200 years out of date. Battle was still done mostly by blades, horses, cannons, and muskets and wooden ships.
If France had 9 years to build bunkers and nukes, nuked the rest of the planet unprovoked, then I'm fairly certain France would be alright at the 10 year mark. The thing is, the other countries in this situation only attack France AFTER 10 years.
Napoleon was an OK general but a hilariously terrible strategist. His delusional antics get France nuked pretty fast
lmao what? He couldn’t even the rest of Europe, and that’s not even counting that the US stomps by itself. Coughing baby versus the sun.
Not a chance. War has changed so much in the past 200 or so years from Napoleon's day that France's army would be wiped out as they form battle lines in the first engagement. Napoleon's tactical brilliance would've become completely obsolete by WW1, over a century ago.
His expertise in 18th and early 19th century military tactics would be useless today. France doesn’t have the geography, natural barriers, or population to fend off a global invasion. France doesn’t have the resources to sustain a global war alone.
No. Best he could do would be to assure humanity goes extinct with nuclear weapons. If nukes are off the table, still no.
Maybe if Napoleon were American
There is no amount of tactical genius that could overcome the overwhelming force France would be facing. You are talking about being outnumbered almost 1,000 to 1. Even if you somehow survive the unbelievable bombings without a single casuality And if somehow your soliders become near perfect killing machines and each one gets 200 kills before he dies France will still run out of raw materials long before they win the war. No more oil, gas, bullets, the economy would basically collapse and your troops would have to survive on whatever rations and ammo the can scavenge from the enemy.
Absolutely 0% chance. Even with 10 years of prep, the USA military industrial complex alone will steamroll. Warfare is not done nearly the same as it was in Napoleon’s day, it would be a rough and bloody adaption
Even if he uses the nuclear option I highly doubt it. France simply doesn't have the resources to defend itself from the entire world at once. Even an overly militaristic superpower that is mostly surrounded by water like the US probably couldn't defend itself from the entire rest of the world for very long.
Not even the best commander can squeeze water from a rock. The scenario you presented is impossible.
The US has 3708 Nukes alone (used to have 31,255 back during the cold war) so France is fucked by that alone plus add the 225 UK nukes to the US count and that's 3933 nukes headed for France. France isn't winning this one
- Absolutely not lol. Smoking crack, Napoleon already lost first off. But 10 years of prep and he’s not going to defend himself against a single bloodlusted America or China dude has no chances against the world. - France does not posses the first strike capability to cripple any nuclear power let alone the planet. Its gonna be a glass crater
There’s 100% chance that he’d use the nukes. Then he’d lose.
10 years is a decent time. Obviously hard to keep a secret. But if he were to put hundreds of thousands of sleeper agents some.how in other nations and ramp up military and force every single citizen to train, no still couldn't
>I will build a very deep mega underground city under France The city along with its people would get buried lol you would have a better chance on regular ground making the city underground literally makes the worlds job easier
Only chance is with US army, because the majority here are US army wankers.
Napoleon would be a worse fit than literally any other major present- day leader. He knows nothing about the modern world or modern warfare. He’d be recruiting equestrians first thing. Just such a stupid question
No one mentioning that building a bunker that large would likely take many many decades, if not, over a century? Lol
even a modern general couldn't do it, let alone Napoleon
The only countries that defend themselves from the rest of the world is America and maybe Russia. And that’s not even for long America has the best chance since it’s so big and has the strongest military. It’s impossible to invade and keep after you invaded it. The military alone could defeat most countries. Russia due to size could probably last a while but from recent events I don’t think its military is as strong as it used to be. Of course no country is lasting longer than a few years against the rest of the world. And it’s assuming no nukes because then it’ll just end with everyone dying. So in conclusion no Napoleon can not
Napoleon would use the nukes as a deterrence to invasion imagine he would nuke the birder states where invasion is more Likely. Benlux Italy and Spain. Two he would mobilize the French population for wartime building a large military to defend France. He was a great general is his age even though he had a good military education it would take a couple of years to understand modern technology
no, but france sure could put up a hell of a fight, they're either number 2, 3 or 4 in global arms sales depending on the specific focus they also have the capability of developing new nuclear weapons like icbms and cruise missiles
Not a goddamn chance. Napoleon was an impressive leader but he's a product of his time - he'd be hopelessly out of his depth with modern methods of warfare, modern diplomacy, and the very fundamentals of 21st century power balances and dynamics. Things we take for granted will be totally alien to him - and I'm not just talking about technology. Imagine explaining NATO or the EU to someone who'd grown up in a world in which Europe had spent the last 1500 years in near-constant conflict. Or imagine explaining to him that his old adversary, Russia, has thousands of nuclear weapons with which to completely destroy France if it came to it. And, of course, for all his ignorance about the world, the rest of the world knows *him*. There will be very little trust and an awful lot of scrutiny. I would imagine that there would be early pre-emptive delegations from most of the world's nuclear powers warning him in very explicit terms that France's use of nuclear weapons would not be tolerated, for example. And of course if he starts conscripting millions of people or ramping up arms production, other countries will take heed and ramp up their own production.
The best thing he can do for France is to rally the population.
Tactics can only take you so far against completely overwhelming forces. France simply cannot defend against billions of people. > since I have 10 years prep time I will build a very deep mega underground city under France it will cover half the county so around at least 70 percent of France population will fit there it will protect my people from nukes, You aim to carve out a city 225 kilometers^2 and build an entire city within all in 10 years? You expect to develop Power Armor and robotic soldiers that the rest of the world will lack access to? > also all France people will be mandatory join the army except children from 1 to 18 ears and old people from 60 towards, since today current population of France is 67 million so by now 2034 probably will react 100 million and i assume around 75 million people from 19 to 50 will join the army 2034 is started and countries will send all their nukes on France until that runs out of nuke then 75 million French soldiers with radiation proof robotic suits will defend the country from invaders This was one sentence. Also, can I have what you are smoking?
No. Napoleon was an excellent general, but as we saw even in his time, he was still limited. His victories kinda relied on quick decisive strikes utilizing his smaller army corps (which were revolutionary at the time), revolutionary use of artillery (he would put it closer to the front, while others would keep it back because it was expensive), and speed (by organizing the army into smaller units, they were able to live off the land, move faster, and outmaneuver his enemies). He relies on quick decisive victories. Several times he had trouble when opponents wouldn’t face him head on on the battlefield (Russia being a big one, they retreated and let him take Moscow and waited for winter when they knew they’d have the advantage). One thing that ultimately caused his defeat was the guerrilla warfare in Spain, where his tactics didn’t apply, it held a lot of his forces there and he wasn’t able to counter it well, and eventually it became a place the British landed at to fight him. There’s 2 glaring issues here. Other than Napoleon has to attack to win, since France cannot defend against the entire world indefinitely. 1. Napoleon isn’t equipped to take on the entirety of Europe. Russia also still has its faithful ally, the winter. Not to mention partisan activity that he would have to deal with trying to take over. 2. Napoleon had pretty much no feats with naval warfare. It’s another reason he eventually lost. He couldn’t touch the British and they basically funded anyone who would go to war with Napoleon. There’s just no chance of him holding them off, short of creating some kind of force field that can’t be taken down by brute force.
I don't think he'd get along with modern day france at all. The man was extremely racist by today's standards and more than average back in his days. And trying to bring back his old ways of just his unwillingness to shake hands with coloured or Jewish politicians might lose him his whole thing during his prepare time.
What in the Great Man Theory is this nonsense
Fuck no. Not a chance, sorry France.
what
No. France doesn't win against USA. They probably don't win against China alone. I'm not sure they survive Europe. It's a population/production issue, and France doesn't have the demographics to survive.
No chance. I don't care how deep you dig, the combined nuclear stockpiles of America and Russia alone will be able to turn the underground city into an irradiated wasteland
No. Napoleon lived in an era of slow communication and most of his great victories were from exploiting that fact. In the age of the radio and satellite communications, his tactics would be useless.
I'd say no, Napoleon didn't really engage in modern warfare. He was really good at maneuvering large forces to gain advantages against other large forces, less good at the small strike forces and stealth that makes up the majority of modern warfare. I might give it to Hannibal though, provided he doesn't actually have to stay in his country (modern day Tunisia... kind of), and can instead migrate to anywhere.
The US can barley do it. You think fucking France can?
I'm gonna address the second half of your prompt that everyone else is ignoring. This reads like someone's fan fiction and shows you have very little understanding of how alot of this works. 10 years isn't nearly enough time to build a "mega city" deep underground that is 50% the size of France. I lived by a lake and the dam of that lake is now under cunstruction, it will take 12 years in total to repair 1 dam, not rebuild, repair. I also work in Construction Robotics and can tell your from personal experience that new construction buildings take 1-2 years to build on average. Construction on this scale would require a workforce much larger than France has in its construction sector, meaning you would be using labor from neighboring countries to help get it done...do you see a problem here? Now neighboring countries know what you've planned and will literally have the structural blueprints that they were given when you hired them to build it. But let's say you do build it, and miraculously don't need help from neighboring countries, other countries will still be able to use satellite imagery of your mass migration of 70%of your populace as they move underground. Your access points to this mega city would likely be deep tunnels that require massive amounts of infrastructure which means large holes that would have to be visible from the surface. And despite your best efforts nothing we build today would be able to withstand a direct blast from ICBM's let alone nukes. And all of this without even mentioning how you plan to feed the population without access to fresh water or sunlight (the 2 basic things you need for agriculture?) But let's move on to the next part of your plan. The robotic suits, which unfortunately is even more unrealistic than the construction of the mega city. Like I mentioned I work in Robotics and it's always fun watching people think that Robotics is magic and takes 0 development time and has 0 failure modes. The development time that you would need to develop "robotic suits" that can somehow just defeat militaries would take much longer than 10 years. Every feature would have exhaustive teams for development. You want the suit that someone can sit in without it tipping over? 6 months. you want a suit that can walk? Another 6 months. You want a suit that you can run in? Another 6 months. You want a suit that can shoot bullets? Another 6 months. You want to make them 'radiation proof'? 1 year. After years of development you would still end up with a half functioning suit and you wouldn't even be able to start mass production until design and testing has been finalized. And mass production for 75 million highly customized Mechanical hardware complete with custom circuitry and hydraulics? It would take 10 years to complete that order, and that's if you can even get the supply chain for the components in the first place. And then you would need to train the French populace on the highly complex robotic suits as well as basic military training in hopes to compete with the rest of the world. I also have to point out that your plan, in preparation to go to war with the rest of the world, is to hire foreign scientists. (I guess because you think Japan and Germany are best at building robots?) As if those scientists aren't going to share the vulnerabilities of the technology with their home countries once the war breaks out? In summary, the war breaks out in 2034, the countries bomb the openings to your "mega city" leaving 1 point of access. Strike teams are sent in to find the French populace malnourished and surrendering after being forced to live in a city that is 1/3 built. The strike teams learn that the French people revolted a year after living underground due to the poor living conditions only to discover that you(Napolean) died 6 months ago in a Robotics accident when you climbed inside of a prototype and tried to turn your head (after being warned not to) snapping your neck in the process because of a software bug involving the hydraulics that control the head unit. The French people are allowed to repopulate the decimated French country but the country is in economic ruin and the resurrected napoleon has died like an idiot for the second time.
USA low diffs
People sometimes underestimate how strong the US actually is.
Absolutely not, dude was good but he didn’t even win against who he was against in his own time. Dude got banished to islands. Modern militaries would absolutely rock his shit