What Invasion and Occupation Plan Would the Unites States Military use to Fully Take Over Roshar?

[NameIess]

5 hours ago, Returned said:

It's kind of funny, I was just thinking about this thread the other day and how oddly it's aged. The recent months of U.S. operations in Iran have to be the clearest possible evidence (even more so than the then-current operations in Iran over a year ago) that the U.S. advantages in technology and materiel aren't going to be enough to subjugate Roshar alone. The ability to irresistibly blow things up and annihilate massed soldiers in the field isn't enough to conquer, or even dictate the terms of the situation.

Different situation, I would say. Roshar can’t threaten any global (earth) supply routes and has no air defense systems capable of shooting down US aircraft. If we’re assuming this is a total war between Roshar and the US, there’s also the distinction of bombing major population centers.

[Returned he/him]

42 minutes ago, NameIess said:

Different situation, I would say. Roshar can’t threaten any global (earth) supply routes and has no air defense systems capable of shooting down US aircraft. If we’re assuming this is a total war between Roshar and the US, there’s also the distinction of bombing major population centers.

For sure it's a different situation, but the core issue is the same: ability to blow up a bunch of stuff does not mean that you can necessarily accomplish any particular goals outside of that destruction. All the munitions the U.S. expended (a non-trivial portion of the total that was available) wasn't enough to destroy Iran's ability to launch counterattacks, still required staging through multiple bases, wasn't enough to force a change in government, and if it wasn't enough to destroy all military capabilities it follows that it also wouldn't be enough to destroy all population centers (certainly not enough to do both). Bombing population centers is also, historically, not all that helpful in winning a war or accomplishing war objectives besides maximum death, even if the invaders are capable of and willing to do it.

The main point is that the bombs-and-missiles weren't enough to conquer a real-world opponent with inferior technology and far less wealth because blowing a bunch of stuff up is not, fundamentally, capable of that. The people who launched the most recent war with Iran assumed that the destruction they could unleash would cause it to fold very quickly and out of necessity, but it didn't.

Edited Sunday at 01:18 AM by Returned

[NameIess]

6 minutes ago, Returned said:

For sure it's a different situation, but the core issue is the same: ability to blow up a bunch of stuff does not mean that you can necessarily accomplish any particular goals outside of that destruction. All the munitions the U.S. expended (a non-trivial portion of the total that was available) wasn't enough to destroy Iran's ability to launch counterattacks, still required staging through multiple bases, wasn't enough to force a change in government, and if it wasn't enough to destroy all military capabilities it follows that it also wouldn't be enough to destroy all population centers (certainly not enough to do both). Bombing population centers is also, historically, not all that helpful in winning a war or accomplishing war objectives besides maximum death, even if the invaders are capable of and willing to do it.

The main point is that the bombs-and-missiles weren't enough to conquer a real-world opponent with inferior technology and far less wealth because blowing a bunch of stuff up is not, fundamentally, capable of that. The people who launched the most recent war with Iran assumed that the destruction they could unleash would cause it to fold very quickly and out of necessity, but it didn't.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the munitions expended were only a sizeable portion of the most advanced munitions. They had plenty of simpler missiles and bombs, which would suffice to destroy any target against an opponent with no air defenses beyond Windrunners and Skybreakers.

And I feel that for the purposes of coercion, threatening to destroy population centers, burn farmland, etc. would be impactful.

[Frustration]

1 hour ago, Returned said:

For sure it's a different situation, but the core issue is the same: ability to blow up a bunch of stuff does not mean that you can necessarily accomplish any particular goals outside of that destruction. All the munitions the U.S. expended (a non-trivial portion of the total that was available) wasn't enough to destroy Iran's ability to launch counterattacks, still required staging through multiple bases, wasn't enough to force a change in government, and if it wasn't enough to destroy all military capabilities it follows that it also wouldn't be enough to destroy all population centers (certainly not enough to do both). Bombing population centers is also, historically, not all that helpful in winning a war or accomplishing war objectives besides maximum death, even if the invaders are capable of and willing to do it.

The main point is that the bombs-and-missiles weren't enough to conquer a real-world opponent with inferior technology and far less wealth because blowing a bunch of stuff up is not, fundamentally, capable of that. The people who launched the most recent war with Iran assumed that the destruction they could unleash would cause it to fold very quickly and out of necessity, but it didn't.

There seems to be a distinction lost here.

Simply blowing things up and economic pressure can very easily and reliably erode the ability to fight, just as it did in Iran. However, blowing things up isn't guaranteed to destroy the WILL to fight, which is often far more important, and what the US has so far failed to do in Iran.

Applying this to Roshar, yes Rosharan military capabilities can very easily be destroyed assuming the US can adapt its engines to Rosharan conditions, however the Rosharan will to fight has proven resilient over millennia of combat. And they also have the ability to easily destroy American military assets.

[Returned he/him]

1 hour ago, NameIess said:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the munitions expended were only a sizeable portion of the most advanced munitions. They had plenty of simpler missiles and bombs, which would suffice to destroy any target against an opponent with no air defenses beyond Windrunners and Skybreakers.

And I feel that for the purposes of coercion, threatening to destroy population centers, burn farmland, etc. would be impactful.

I'm not satisfied enough with the reliability of official statements to feel confident parsing it any more than I posted above, so the specific munitions depleted could well be just a subset. At the same time, the vaunted destructive potential of the U.S. military is also based at least in part on those munitions existing, so the effect might be similar either way. My main idea in bringing it up is that there probably aren't enough munitions available to flatten Roshar from the seas.

As to the coercion, even when militaries have specifically bombed population centers it didn't have the effect you're suggesting. A terror bombing campaign is almost certainly impactful, but not a war-ender. It's the kind of thing that seems instinctively like it would be true, but people have thought this since Douhet in 1921 and it really hasn't worked out that way.

30 minutes ago, Frustration said:

There seems to be a distinction lost here.

Simply blowing things up and economic pressure can very easily and reliably erode the ability to fight, just as it did in Iran. However, blowing things up isn't guaranteed to destroy the WILL to fight, which is often far more important, and what the US has so far failed to do in Iran.

Applying this to Roshar, yes Rosharan military capabilities can very easily be destroyed assuming the US can adapt its engines to Rosharan conditions, however the Rosharan will to fight has proven resilient over millennia of combat. And they also have the ability to easily destroy American military assets.

That's a fair distinction to draw. I'm not even asserting that much, though. The bombing isn't going to be thorough enough for the invaders to simply win by doing it. That Rosharans have more resilience (due to magic) in infrastructure than real-world polities only makes it harder for destructive bombing to force an end to the conflict, and certainly less likely that they'd fold. But the destruction alone isn't going to limit what the Rosharans can do very much-- it's not even going to degrade their industry or materiel in a meaningful way.

[Mystic He/Him]

1 hour ago, Returned said:

I'm not satisfied enough with the reliability of official statements to feel confident parsing it any more than I posted above, so the specific munitions depleted could well be just a subset. At the same time, the vaunted destructive potential of the U.S. military is also based at least in part on those munitions existing, so the effect might be similar either way. My main idea in bringing it up is that there probably aren't enough munitions available to flatten Roshar from the seas.

As to the coercion, even when militaries have specifically bombed population centers it didn't have the effect you're suggesting. A terror bombing campaign is almost certainly impactful, but not a war-ender. It's the kind of thing that seems instinctively like it would be true, but people have thought this since Douhet in 1921 and it really hasn't worked out that way.

That's a fair distinction to draw. I'm not even asserting that much, though. The bombing isn't going to be thorough enough for the invaders to simply win by doing it. That Rosharans have more resilience (due to magic) in infrastructure than real-world polities only makes it harder for destructive bombing to force an end to the conflict, and certainly less likely that they'd fold. But the destruction alone isn't going to limit what the Rosharans can do very much-- it's not even going to degrade their industry or materiel in a meaningful way.

Adding on to this. The Rosharans(comparatively) have very little infrastructure. They don’t have oil refineries that could be bombed, or airstrips that could be taken out. Almost anything you could destroy(aside from oathgates and Urithiru) is replaceable, has multiple copies, and they can most likely do without.

The only exception would be farms. That’s a lot harder to do without. But I think the nature of Roshar being made of rock, the high storms, and the fact that the plants move, would make burning pretty futile. It would take a lot of effort to destroy a field IMO

Which means you’re reduced to just killing people(what else could you do here?) and that would just make the people fight harder. Senseless slaughter either makes people give up due the display of power, or fight harder for revenge(I’m simplifying). And based on the desolations, Roshar doesn’t do giving up very well

[Schizoposting]

The issue with Iran was that the US lacked the political will to open the Strait of Hormuz, i.e., the will to launch a million-man invasion of Iran; if they had done this, they would have "won".

I have talked about this before, but the will to fight is an essential resource in war, no different from manufacturing capacity. 

The actual way to conquer Roshar is through economic hegemony, and not military force. 

[king of nowhere]

6 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

The issue with Iran was that the US lacked the political will to open the Strait of Hormuz, i.e., the will to launch a million-man invasion of Iran; if they had done this, they would have "won".

I have talked about this before, but the will to fight is an essential resource in war, no different from manufacturing capacity. 

The actual way to conquer Roshar is through economic hegemony, and not military force. 

yes indeed. no country every fought to the last man. in a real war, "how much are you willing to sacrifice before you give up" is a lot more important than the strict "how powerful you are".

which is why all the hypoteticals "could X win a war against Y" are silly. they posit scenarios in a vacuum, without the political and economical context that would actually make all the difference. 

sure, you can theorize that if you put together the army of X and the army of Y and pitch them in an open battle, X would win. but then X would just learn that it can't win a direct engagement, disperse its remaining forces and start guerrilla operations. then victory would go to whomever can outlast the enemy.

with that said, i'll say that america cannot conquer roshar - because the american population has no interest in the war to conquer a planet with a hostile environment and no strategic interest that did nothing to them, and would never agree to the war, while the rosharans would resist fanatically because they are a warlike people led by warlike leaders.

on the other hand, a dictatorship may manage to conquer roshar. a dictatorship may have the willingness to deploy millions of men and carry out campaigns of extermination against the natives - which eventually work at quelling resistance; they just require carrying out destruction on such large scale that very few real world nations would be willing to do it.

[NameIess]

On 6/28/2026 at 1:29 AM, Schizoposting said:

The issue with Iran was that the US lacked the political will to open the Strait of Hormuz, i.e., the will to launch a million-man invasion of Iran; if they had done this, they would have "won".

I have talked about this before, but the will to fight is an essential resource in war, no different from manufacturing capacity. 

The actual way to conquer Roshar is through economic hegemony, and not military force. 

 

On 6/28/2026 at 1:18 AM, Mystic said:

Adding on to this. The Rosharans(comparatively) have very little infrastructure. They don’t have oil refineries that could be bombed, or airstrips that could be taken out. Almost anything you could destroy(aside from oathgates and Urithiru) is replaceable, has multiple copies, and they can most likely do without.

The only exception would be farms. That’s a lot harder to do without. But I think the nature of Roshar being made of rock, the high storms, and the fact that the plants move, would make burning pretty futile. It would take a lot of effort to destroy a field IMO

Which means you’re reduced to just killing people(what else could you do here?) and that would just make the people fight harder. Senseless slaughter either makes people give up due the display of power, or fight harder for revenge(I’m simplifying). And based on the desolations, Roshar doesn’t do giving up very well

True. An attempt to totally conquer Roshar would inevitably turn into guerrilla warfare if the nations couldn’t be convinced to surrender in exchange for not having their populations decimated, assuming the US would have the will to do that.

A more realistic scenario, I think, is the US discovering the portal, sending spies through it, realizing soulcasters and other potentially useful fabrials exist, and offering military aid (we’ll bomb the enemy army into oblivion next time you both march out to war and equip your guys with guns) in exchange for Soulcasters making extremely rare and hard to get materials for them.

[Mystic He/Him]

2 minutes ago, NameIess said:

 

True. An attempt to totally conquer Roshar would inevitably turn into guerrilla warfare if the nations couldn’t be convinced to surrender in exchange for not having their populations decimated, assuming the US would have the will to do that.

A more realistic scenario, I think, is the US discovering the portal, sending spies through it, realizing soulcasters and other potentially useful fabrials exist, and offering military aid (we’ll bomb the enemy army into oblivion next time you both march out to war and equip your guys with guns) in exchange for Soulcasters making extremely rare and hard to get materials for them.

It’d just be a first of the sun scenario