is there a proper word or phrase for this? to wage war until the other country is completedly conquered?
to declare _____ on Ogland.
Unconditional war?
“Total war” might not be a bad term, though it implies a complete utilization of resources. Wikipedia’s definition is “Total war is a war limitless in its scope in which a belligerent engages in the mobilization of all their available resources, in order to render beyond use their rival’s capacity for resistance.”
I suppose it would be possible to use only a portion of your strength and yet still pursue the total destruction of some small enemy, so unconditional war might be the better term.
Complete domination?
What’s wrong with “war to the bitter end”?
If not that, maybe a war of conquest? Total war? Genocide? Megapwnage?
In medieval times, the French term a l’outrance meant a combat to the utmost, not a sham combat or a one for limited objectives, but an all-out attempt to kill each other.
War of Annihilation?
I’ve always liked, “delenda est,” for getting the point across.
i don’t know. it’s what i want to say but i thought there might be a word for it since i’m actually having fun instead of being bitter 
i’ll probably go for total war since that appears to fit what i’m doing; suiciding in the face of imminent loss.
*completely
Wait, a word for a war that is intended to be carried out until resistance ceases? I think the word “war” sums it up perfectly.
There is also limited war – in which objectives may be more limited than capitulation. The term total war generally speaks to the mobilization of the country carrying out the war, and a war of annihilation would tend to mean a war carried out with a genocidal intention.
I suppose one could say a “war of aggression,” which means that the war is not undertaken in self-defense. But I am straining to see why “war” by itself is not suitable.
I also like “the ram has touched the wall.” Evidently, the convention in antiquity was that no mercy would be granted to a city that resisted its attackers once they began operating siege weapons.
I always thought of it as “war to the knife” - that is, war to the point where you will fight with knives and/or stab the wounded.
Regards,
Shodan
Debellatio(n) refers to war that ends with one side wiped out.
“Internecine” warfare?
Best wishes,
hh
A war of utter destruction/devastation.
In the 20th century the most common way of describing this was a war seeking “unconditional surrender”. IOW, the winners weren’t interested in a truce or armistice, or any sort of negotiated peace; they wanted a belly-up surrender, and usually the extinction of the government that had formerly run the country. There ought to be a simple word or phrase to mean this, but I don’t know of one.
In combat between knights, the term with no quarter given.
That’s also used in later wars to indicate that no surrender will be accepted – all enemy soldiers are to be killed.
Apparently still occurs: it is forbidden by the Geneva Convention, and was one of the charges against Nazi military commanders in the Nuremberg trials.
It seems that there are three different ideas being tossed around in this thread. The OP refers to the other country being completely conquered: I think that’s captured by unconditional surrender, which was the policy of the Allies in WWII - Germany and Japan were told that the only way to end the war was for them to surrender without conditions - the destruction of their governments and control over their countries, but not the destruction of the countries themselves. And, I don’t think it’s fair to say this is a war of aggression - the Allies took this position because a more limited outcome of WWI had left Germany willing and able to attack other countries. The Allies view was that unconditional surrender was a necessary defence against the aggression of Germany.
“Dalenda est” "debellatio is a more serious step - the complete destruction of the other country, as happened with Carthage: killing the menfolk, enslaving the women and children, burning the city, and sowing the fields with salt so they would not be productive for years.
And then, the OP also mentions a suicidal war, in the sense of the defender fighting on to the end, when all hope is lost. I think that was Hitler’s final policy, but not carried out by Doenitz.
Both sides at a the Battle of Towton moor(during the Wars of the Roses, an English civil war) declared beforehand that no quarter would be asked or given.
And they obeyed those dictates to a very bloody end.
Another conflict that would qualify; about 90% of the male population of the losing country, Paraguay, was killed: Paraguayan War - Wikipedia