/pol/ - International /Pol/itics & /Bant/er

>Isn't killing and stealing le bad?
Killing and stealing are bad within a society because they undermine social cohesion. Uniting under the cause of destroying another nation and taking their resources is actually the highest expressions of civilization there is. Certainly far higher than wasting resources on such frivolities as monuments or artwork. Furthermore, not a single one of us would be alive today if our ancestors hadn't killed and stolen for their own betterment. There are two ways to procure wealth. Either by producing it, or taking it. When this wealth exists unguarded, only the most weak willed and effeminate men would resist taking it, for fear of nonexistent reprisals.
>Wait, but is total depopulation of Latin America even possible?
Yes, and in fact it would be exceedingly easy. Conquering a population is far more difficult than simple eradication. No modern nation can persist without ports, storage facilities or distribution sites for feeding cities. Not to mention electrical and communications infrastructure. As the only nation in the world capable of global military offensive action, the United States could easily bomb this infrastructure, and leave these populations to starve in a matter of days.
>What would we do with the territory afterwards?
Settle it, as we've done in the past. Just as Native Americans were driven from their land to make way for a stronger nation, so too shall their modern descendants be driven from their states. Imagine what wealth is yet to be had. When each subsistence farm is aggregated into an industrial plantation, when every mine is operated under the most sophisticated management, when all suitable land has been built into new cities to house our expanding population, we will achieve the highest civilization yet realized. From that point onwards, we will be better prepared to look across to the continents of Africa, Europe, and Asia, where any non-nuclear equipped nations will fall without any resistance.