NationStates Jolt Archive

Who has the strongest military on earth?

Combination of size, logistical capabilities, combat experience, and technological advantage make the US military the strongest.

I think we're going to find a unanimous agreement that the US's military is the most powerful. However, if the question was "which military is best trained", we may have a debate on our hands.

http://www.bluelinecomics.com/pictures/Faster%20than%20the%20speed%20of%20stupid%20600.jpg

Factoring in all variables. Based on:
nuclear arsenals
type and # of tanks
air superiority
the entire navy(including the subs)
army strength
training
effectiveness
military history

I'll say the US. Who else could go through so many wars and only get 2 draws and 0 losses(Vietnam was a draw. The treaty says so)? No one. Plus, the US has allies. Great allies, like the UK. Unfortunately, some UK citizens and politicians hate the US. I don't really know why. Iraq was legal(you violate the treaties and you're asking to get attacked.) and there's no definite proof of torture or what is and isn't torture(there are those of you who define torture as "anything America/Bush/your political opponents/etc. does/do".

Someone will probably make a case for China based largely on manpower, but I would have to go with the US.

The US, both in terms of its technical quality and its involvement in NATO, which further pools the best equipment and manpower and gives the US the added strength of its members.

Alright, who voted UK? LMAO @ you, whoever you are

Other: Botswana.

Seriously, look it up.

Herro!

It's North Korea. Kim Jong Il is the man.

And Germany's not even on the list...:p

Alright, who voted UK? LMAO @ you, whoever you are
UK has a very strong military, but they're just outnumbered and lack the logistical capabilities to move men, supplies and weapons all over.

Someone will probably make a case for China based largely on manpower, but I would have to go with the US.
Actually as of just a few months ago, India has the largest army

UK has a very strong military, but they're just outnumbered and lack the logistical capabilities to move men, supplies and weapons all over.

It's not that I think we have a weak military, per se. Just that it cannot compare to the American military, especially in terms of funding, or places like China and India in terms of manpower.

Obviously, the answer is Luxembourg.

And Germany's not even on the list...:p
Even more worryingly, the EU is not on the list. :rolleyes: It may not be a country (yet), but its still a global force.

And Germany's not even on the list...:p
With the end of WW2 Germany and Japan faced large military cuts, thats why they arent there

With the end of WW2 Germany and Japan faced large military cuts, thats why they arent there
What about France though? It has nuclear power.

Obviously, the answer is Luxembourg.

The world's superpower, with it's 90,279 men fit for military service!

It's not that I think we have a weak military, per se. Just that it cannot compare to the American military, especially in terms of funding, or places like China and India in terms of manpower.
Well, we're a tiny island with nuclear weapons, and our only significant enemy is Spanish fishermen. There's only so much military might you need for that.

But, yeah, US might not have the most numbers, but with all its shiny toys it'd probably beat anyone stupid enough to try.

What about France though? It has nuclear power.
You can't be serious.

You can't be serious.
De Gaulle made considerable efforts to ensure that France became the fourth nuclear power.

Well, we're a tiny island with nuclear weapons, and our only significant enemy is Spanish fishermen. There's only so much military might you need for that.


We could always have a "War on Chavs" or something...

Even more worryingly, the EU is not on the list. :rolleyes: It may not be a country (yet), but its still a global force.
Um, is there a unified EU military? No? Oh, that might be why.

Obviously, the answer is Luxembourg.

Andorra begs to differ

The world's superpower, with it's 90,279 men fit for military service!

There was this one movie about some tiny country in Europe that declared war on the US because the US always gives money and aid to the countries it defeats. But then the US surrendered to them. I think their country had a population of 90 or something crazy like that. The movie was called something like The Mouse That Roared. Or something like that.

The US Millitary, definately. It is one of the best trained millitaries in the world, although certainly not THE best, has the best technology, has about the same amount of funding, if not more than, the rest of the world combined (saw a chart somewhere) and has the only Navy capable of any sort of signifigent power projection in the world.

The US could beat any millitary in the world one on one, save perhaps Russia in Russia (size, climate), or China in China (population and size). The US could beat either of those countries on "nuteral territory" though.

This is, of course, assuming no nukes, as a nuclear war would leave us all as radioactive jello

Mano a Mano, I would have to go with Isreal though. World's smallest nuclear power, and has never lost or tied in a war in modern times.

I fully believe that while the United States possesses the best combination of hardware, manpower, logistics, and manufacturing capability, the Russian Army and Navy posess a number of technologies that are of some merit.

Notably is the gigantic Kirov-class heavy cruiser.

Were the Russians to be as well-funded as we are, I would have to vote in their favor.

Um, is there a unified EU military? No? Oh, that might be why.
Combine the militaries of all the EU countries.

China: Our army is big and scarey!

USA: We can destroy the world ten times over.

China: Oh, crap!

France: Augh! We surrender!

Sorry :P

Combine the militaries of all the EU countries.
Easier said than done. Chain of command might become a problem.

Andorra begs to differ
Yes, but Luxemburg has a shadow pact with Turkmenistan and no amount of cheap gas and cigarettes can save you when the Turkmenbashi moves out.

Easier said than done. Chain of command might become a problem.
True, given that as you said the EU is still not a unified military force, yet even so, its combined military strength should be considerable enough to include on such a poll.

True, given that as you said the EU is still not a unified military force, yet even so, its combined military strength should be considerable enough to include on such a poll.

Which part of the word Nation is confusing you?

True, given that as you said the EU is still not a unified military force, yet even so, its combined military strength should be considerable enough to include on such a poll.
Well, then we might as well use the combined military force of NAFTA as well. That's all Europe is right now. Just a trading bloc with more bureaucracy.

True, given that as you said the EU is still not a unified military force, yet even so, its combined military strength should be considerable enough to include on such a poll.
Well, then we might as well use the combined military force of NAFTA as well. That's all Europe is right now. Just a trading bloc with more bureaucracy.

True, given that as you said the EU is still not a unified military force, yet even so, its combined military strength should be considerable enough to include on such a poll.
Well, then we might as well use the combined military force of NAFTA as well. That's all Europe is right now. Just a trading bloc with more bureaucracy.

True, given that as you said the EU is still not a unified military force, yet even so, its combined military strength should be considerable enough to include on such a poll.
Well, then we might as well use the combined military force of NAFTA as well. That's all Europe is right now. Just a trading bloc with more bureaucracy.

True, given that as you said the EU is still not a unified military force, yet even so, its combined military strength should be considerable enough to include on such a poll.
Well, then we might as well use the combined military force of NAFTA as well. That's all Europe is right now. Just a trading bloc with more bureaucracy.

True, given that as you said the EU is still not a unified military force, yet even so, its combined military strength should be considerable enough to include on such a poll.
Well, then we might as well use the combined military force of NAFTA as well. That's all Europe is right now. Just a trading bloc with more bureaucracy.

technically, the US is NOT well funded......

we are in the Minas Trench of national debt that threatens to drown us all.

also, we do have some neat toys. but the are much too expensive to mass produce and distribute widely. We can barely get troops basic armor and flac jackets.

in a massive war with an organized country,the US economy would collapse and we would lose.

personally, i think china would win by numbers. they may not have as large of a standing army as India, but all people living there are potential soldiers.
Thats BILLIONS of people.

Which part of the word Nation is confusing you?
The part that doesn't let him engage in Eurowanking and would force him to admit that *gasp, shock* the US might actually be good at something.

Well, then we might as well use the combined military force of NAFTA as well. That's all Europe is right now. Just a trading bloc with more bureaucracy.
That comment was just as good and relevant the 6th time as it was the first. Good show, old boy.

Well, then we might as well use the combined military force of NAFTA as well. That's all Europe is right now. Just a trading bloc with more bureaucracy.
For now.

I must say the United States of America. Many militaries may well have more warm bodies, or more tanks, etc..., but when it comes down to it, the US Armed Forces have some of the best equipment, training, etc... in the world.

England comes pretty close to us, though. Their training is equal to ours. However, the British military has always been hurt by numerical issues to my understanding.

~ Romandeos.

P.S. By the way, Ol Erisia, China does not have billions of people, they have a little bit over one billion, approximately 1,306,313,812 to be precise, according to the latest CIA reports.

in a massive war with an organized country,the US economy would collapse and we would lose..

No, our economy would boom just like it did in WWII. The situation then was even worse, and we were able to mobilize ourselves during a Depression and build one of the greatest armies of the world in record time and quality.

For now.

**checks watch**

Oh look, it is still the present

Yes i see the European Rapid Responce Force , and the E.U. taking over peacekeeping dutys in Kosvo, as a sign the European Union will in the future have its own army , which is something i think is great ( hey i would join , i am already a member of my counters reserves and would love to take part in a bigger force )

**checks watch**

Oh look, it is still the present
My, aren't you funny...ever tried being a comedian? :rolleyes:

Europe is already powerful, its combined military force is something which could be a threat if it were necessary, and in the future it will become even more powerful.

Herro!

"Ramen."

My, aren't you funny...ever tried being a comedian? :rolleyes:


No. Too many jealous idiots who don't get me.

No. Too many jealous idiots who don't get me.
They must be green with envy.

I'll say the US. Who else could go through so many wars and only get 2 draws and 0 losses(Vietnam was a draw. The treaty says so)? No one.


I would like to point out that the U.S. has only had a military history for 230 years. Some of the other civilizations listed have military histories that span a much greater amount of time than the U.S. Of course, countries like China and the U.K. have undergone government restructuring over the last thousand years, but they are still the same nations, nonetheless. Thus, they have had a much longer timescale by which to measure their military track record. So to judge U.S. militrary prowess by a wins-losses-draws scale is inadequate.

They must be green with envy.

**hands you a mirror**

Yes i see the European Rapid Responce Force , and the E.U. taking over peacekeeping dutys in Kosvo, as a sign the European Union will in the future have its own army , which is something i think is great ( hey i would join , i am already a member of my counters reserves and would love to take part in a bigger force )

Nice to see someone else who believes in serving his countrymen!

For me, I will join the Armed Forces of my beloved United States of America later this year if all goes as planned. I will serve my people with pride, and it is my belief that more Americans should be willing to serve.

I won't wear a blue beret, though. They can court-martial me if they want, but I won't wear one.

~ Romandeos.

**hands you a mirror**
Just when I thought mirror jokes were limited to 5 year olds...:rolleyes:

Canada would clearly win in any possible war.


(Against nations with under 1000 people.)

Just when I thought mirror jokes were limited to 5 year olds...:rolleyes:

What, you mean you only post like a five-year-old?

With the end of WW2 Germany and Japan faced large military cuts, thats why they arent there
In its role, namely to slow down the huge Soviet advance on the ground, with tanks, artillery and the like, supported initially by NATO Air Forces and then other NATO Groundforces, it would still be a relatively formidable force.

It's just that it's not meant to be used on its own, which is why they have to work so hard to completely restructure it - and there's not enough money for that. Military spending is not exactly popular in Germany.

You can't be serious.
Why not? France is one of the top two militaries in Europe, and it's got nukes, a pretty modern and capable air force, a big carrier and the like.

Um, is there a unified EU military? No? Oh, that might be why.
And regarding this discussion, this might interest you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-German_Brigade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Rapid_Reaction_Force

What, you mean you only post like a five-year-old?
Umm...yeah, right :)

Back on topic, what is China's military capability?

the title is flawed. military might is not the only measure of power

The combined might of Monaco will crush you all!!!! With all of it's 1.95 sq km, 32,409 people-ness!!!!!:p

Who has the strongest military on earth?

Define "strongest."

According to my definition, the distinction belongs to this state: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sz.html

Edit: In fact, as far as I am concerned, the current debacle in which my country is engaged in Iraq demonstrates that simple blind violent force -- as well as the insistence on using it -- is easily the greatest weakness a people can suffer.

"Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men
doesn't try to force issues
or defeat enemies by force of arms.
For every force there is a counterforce.
Violence, even well intentioned,
always rebounds upon oneself.

The Master does his job
and then stops.
He understands that the universe
is forever out of control,
and that trying to dominate events
goes against the current of the Tao.
Because he believes in himself,
he doesn't try to convince others.
Because he is content with himself,
he doesn't need others' approval.
Because he accepts himself,
the whole world accepts him."
-- Tao Te Ching, translation by Stephen Mitchell

The combined might of Monaco will crush you all!!!! With all of it's 1.95 sq km, 32,409 people-ness!!!!!:p
And its casinos! They are secret military training grounds :p

There was this one movie about some tiny country in Europe that declared war on the US because the US always gives money and aid to the countries it defeats. But then the US surrendered to them. I think their country had a population of 90 or something crazy like that. The movie was called something like The Mouse That Roared. Or something like that.
Yes. It was The Mouse That Roared, and the "country" was The Dutchy of Grand Fenwick. They came into possession of a "super bomb" and threatened to detonate it ( by hitting it with a mace! ), laying waste to most of Europe and poisioning the atmosphere for generations, unless all the major powers disarmed. :D

The US Millitary, definately. It is one of the best trained millitaries in the world, although certainly not THE best ....
And your proof of this would be???

The US, no doubt.

Look at our kick ass Navy!!

I fully believe that while the United States possesses the best combination of hardware, manpower, logistics, and manufacturing capability, the Russian Army and Navy posess a number of technologies that are of some merit.

Notably is the gigantic Kirov-class heavy cruiser.

Were the Russians to be as well-funded as we are, I would have to vote in their favor.
I suspect you've taken leave of your senses. :p

And your proof of this would be???
dude, we just are.

Fact of life. The Marines > *

dude, we just are.

Fact of life. The Marines > *
How would these help against a nation thousands of miles away? The US's key force would be its airforce and its nuclear power.

Your army did really well in Vietnam and Iraq by the way, didn't it? ;)

technically, the US is NOT well funded......

we are in the Minas Trench of national debt that threatens to drown us all.

also, we do have some neat toys. but the are much too expensive to mass produce and distribute widely. We can barely get troops basic armor and flac jackets.

in a massive war with an organized country,the US economy would collapse and we would lose.

personally, i think china would win by numbers. they may not have as large of a standing army as India, but all people living there are potential soldiers.
Thats BILLIONS of people.
There are so many factual errors in this post that I have NO idea where to begin, other than to say that you are in serious need of a reality check. :p

the title is flawed. military might is not the only measure of power

Indeed, but actually comparing the penis sizes of different countries is impractical, and so people fall back on the military as a substitute.

**checks watch**

Oh look, it is still the present
ROFLMAO! :D

You know, this thread has taught me something.

You really shouldn't mess with texas, because america can kick your ass.

How would these help against a nation thousands of miles away? The US's key force would be its airforce and its nuclear power.

Your army did really well in Vietnam and Iraq by the way, didn't it? ;)
lol! Yes, we did!

Dead Vietcong/communists: 950,000
Dead Gi's: 58,000

Ratio: ~17:1

There are so many factual errors in this post that I have NO idea where to begin, other than to say that you are in serious need of a reality check. :p
I have to agree. A powerful military nation would not be measured in numbers, but actual military capacity.

Iran, Baby!!!!!

WOOOOOO!

and scene.

(Yes, I actually voted for Iran. Why? Uh... because they have a red, white and green flag, and red, white and green are the colours of Christmas. And Ahmadinejad's a badass. ;) :mp5: )

Nice to see someone else who believes in serving his countrymen!

For me, I will join the Armed Forces of my beloved United States of America later this year if all goes as planned. I will serve my people with pride, and it is my belief that more Americans should be willing to serve.
[ cheers wildly, stomps feet, shouts "Hooah!" ] :D

[ cheers wildly, stomps feet, shouts "Hooah!" ] :D
[Kicks your ass]


:sniper:

The US, because we somehow think that having bigger guns in the day will stop the daggers at night.

The US, because we somehow think that having bigger guns in the day will stop the daggers at night.
Show me who's doing a better job.

And your proof of this would be???
Maybe that some militaries have longer training times, and some also add some political training as well. For example, the German army has this concept of "internal leadership", about which you can read here.
http://www.eng.bmvg.de/C1256F1200608B1B/CurrentBaseLink/W2686BW2672INFOEN (EDIT: Also check the other sub-points on the left side)
http://sicherheitspolitik.bundeswehr.de/12/9.php
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JAP/is_1_10/ai_73328196

It'd be good if the US would do the same. The more rounded individuals you get as soldiers, the better they will perform in stressful situations, and maybe you could even prevent some of the nasty incidents that have happened in recent years.

To be serious for a moment:
The US wins simply by not sucking in any particular area.

China, while it has a MASSIVE and fairly well equipped/trained army, its hampered by its mostly 'brown water' navy, that is, it has few ocean-going ships, meaning that it cant USE its massive army against the US.
While China DOES have nukes, last I checked the best they can do is a fairly low-yield bomb at middling-distance, meaning that they can threaten the west coast and mid-west of the United States with all 12 of their weapons (not sure on the number).
China MAY be a major military power in ten or twenty years, but for now, they dont pose a threat outside of Asia except in an economic way ;)

Russia suffers from a similar problem, although their nuclear capability balances it out. Their technology is old in most cases and they lack the cash required to update their military to a fully modern force. I do understand that certain units of the Russian Army (The military Spetznaz) are VERY formidable, but for the most part they rely on numbers.

The UK has the opposite problem from what I know, a very nice navy, but a small, although well trained and equipped (except for that assault rifle :P) army. Im not sure about their airforce, but I imagine its fairly good.

France...well...its France :P

Germany has a very good army and some excellent tanks, but Im not sure about their navy, which would indicate that they dont have any military power outside of Europe without some kind of assistance.

Basicaly, I think that right now no SINGLE nation could stand against the US for a long period, excepting perhaps Russia, China and India (maybe), basically nations with some kind of 'natural advantage' (EX: Being a million miles wide and covering two continients, extreme nationalism, huge numbers of people, or any combination thereof), and, for the EU'ers/Eurowankers (<-new favorite term :P), I think that the US could stalemate the EU for some time, depending on the situation and various other factors (EX: Non-EU European nations siding with the US for whatever reason) and so on.

Note that I am refering to formal military resistance, guerilla warfare (such as the current Iraq situation) is another matter and is quite difficult to estimate a victor in unless you have some prior knowledge of the country and how it reacts to being occupied.

Who has the strongest military on earth?

Israel, hands down.

Better training.
Constant Experience in the Battlefield.
High Levels of Funding.
Technology on Par with the United States

In essence, Israel can wipe the floor with pretty much any country... Perhaps even the USA.

Basicaly, I think that right now no SINGLE nation could stand against the US for a long period, excepting perhaps Russia, China and India (maybe), basically nations with some kind of 'natural advantage' (EX: Being a million miles wide and covering two continients, extreme nationalism, huge numbers of people, or any combination thereof), and, for the EU'ers/Eurowankers (<-new favorite term :P), I think that the US could stalemate the EU for some time, depending on the situation and various other factors (EX: Non-EU European nations siding with the US for whatever reason) and so on.
Ooh, wouldn't Russia just love to use that as an excuse to engage in war with the USA. :p It could say its merely being neighbourly and protecting its brethren (the EU). The nations I could see siding with the USA would be Turkey (its doubtful that it will ever enter the EU), Israel and perhaps some other nearby nations. Definitely not China though. The EU and Russia would be quite deadly. All the more so when Russia one day joins the EU. I doubt the UK would side with the USA, because although its government is pro-USA, its citizenry is becoming increasingly distant.

Israel, hands down.

Better training.
Constant Experience in the Battlefield.
High Levels of Funding.
Technology on Par with the United States

In essence, Israel can wipe the floor with pretty much any country... Perhaps even the USA.
I am quivering :rolleyes:

Doesn't it also have a ton of enemies?

Germany has a very good army and some excellent tanks, but Im not sure about their navy, which would indicate that they dont have any military power outside of Europe without some kind of assistance.
Again a relic of the Cold War. The idea was to shut down Soviet bases in the Baltic, using U-Boats and the small primarily anti-sub fleet.

The German Army is not intended to do anything without assistance, which is the point. It's entire concept is one of being integrated with NATO.

But it's certainly not the strongest, other than maybe in its intended use, so I understand that it's not on the list. Plus there's no money to spend on it.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1607439,00.html - then
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1772659,00.html - and now.

I'd have to say either the Vatican City or Monaco.

How would these help against a nation thousands of miles away? The US's key force would be its airforce and its nuclear power.

Your army did really well in Vietnam and Iraq by the way, didn't it? ;)

It did, actually. Many battles were won by US forces, and after the Tet Offensive, North Vietnam was going to come to us and ask for our terms, but traitors like Walter Cronkite turned public opinion against the troops in Vietnam, and our enemies saw this and realized they did not need a military win so much as they just needed to hold out long enough.

~ Romandeos.

Israel, hands down.

Better training.
Constant Experience in the Battlefield.
High Levels of Funding.
Technology on Par with the United States

In essence, Israel can wipe the floor with pretty much any country... Perhaps even the USA.

I disagree with that last part. We'd wear them down with time.

~ Romandeos.

It did, actually. Many battles were won by US forces, and after the Tet Offensive, North Vietnam was going to come to us and ask for our terms, but traitors like Walter Cronkite turned public opinion against the troops in Vietnam, and our enemies saw this and realized they did not need a military win so much as they just needed to hold out long enough.

~ Romandeos.
Didn't it also drag on for years and cost the USA huge amounts of cash? Much like Iraq now.

Hey,hey,hey people...calm down. We all know that Canada owns. How could ya'll forget that?

I am quivering :rolleyes:

Doesn't it also have a ton of enemies?

Israel has never lost a single war, even the one in which every single Middle Eastern Country invaded Israel soon after it's creation.

Israel wiped the floor with them.

Can the US claim such a spotless record?

Didn't it also drag on for years and cost the USA huge amounts of cash? Much like Iraq now.

It dragged on because LBJ, whom I often call "Lame-Brain Johnson" micromanaged everything and wouldn't let our people do what they had to do.

Iraq is not another Vietnam, by the way. Nowhere near the same casualties, most of the people like us, etc...

~ Romandeos.

Show me who's doing a better job.

First I have to ask, "Better at what?"

And second, isn't that kind of missing the point?

Meh the Vatican State owns you all :p Well...actually it is powerful :confused: The Catholic Church has a billion followers, huge capital reserves, a central authority figure, and the Vatican itself is like a fortress.

Can the US claim such a spotless record?

Now remind me which war was it where the US lost?


And if Israel attacked the US that would be the best way to get every other middle eastern country to become allies with the US. Israel wouldn't stand a chance.

Now remind me which war was it where the US lost?


And if Israel attacked the US that would be the best way to get every other middle eastern country to become allies with the US. Israel wouldn't stand a chance.
As if it would stand a chance anyway :rolleyes:

The U.S. military wins without difficulty. There are really two scenarios here:

1. Conventional War: The United States has a well-trained, well-equipped military that is quite large. Our air power is the envy of the rest of the world; our navy equally so. In terms of technology, we are number one. These factors, when combined, seem to me to be enough to outweigh any numerical disadvantage that the U.S. now faces.

2. Nuclear War: The United States would most likely be able to defeat the combined nuclear might of the rest of the planet in the event of such a war. Of course, there is a very high probability that significant portions of the planet (including the U.S.) would be rendered uninhabitable for varying degrees of time, and civilization itself would be in serious jeopardy.

Also, in the case of an invader actually reaching U.S. soil (which would require a military alliance by a significant portion of the world), there are still citizens to be reckoned with. The average U.S. citizen is still extremely nationalistic at heart, and any invader would find itself dealing with a resistance movement of unparallelled strength.

Even setting aside whatever bias I may personally feel as a U.S. citizen, there can be little doubt as to who has the world's strongest military.

The U.S. military wins without difficulty. There are really two scenarios here:

1. Conventional War: The United States has a well-trained, well-equipped military that is quite large. Our air power is the envy of the rest of the world; our navy equally so. In terms of technology, we are number one. These factors, when combined, seem to me to be enough to outweigh any numerical disadvantage that the U.S. now faces.

2. Nuclear War: The United States would most likely be able to defeat the combined nuclear might of the rest of the planet in the event of such a war. Of course, there is a very high probability that significant portions of the planet (including the U.S.) would be rendered uninhabitable for varying degrees of time, and civilization itself would be in serious jeopardy.

Also, in the case of an invader actually reaching U.S. soil (which would require a military alliance by a significant portion of the world), there are still citizens to be reckoned with. The average U.S. citizen is still extremely nationalistic at heart, and any invader would find itself dealing with a resistance movement of unparallelled strength.

Even setting aside whatever bias I may personally feel as a U.S. citizen, there can be little doubt as to who has the world's strongest military.

American nationalism is nothing compared to Chinese, Korean or Japanese nationalism. They would die for their country without question. Many Europeans, whilst not as nationalistic as the aforementioned, are also highly patriotic. Russians would be one of the prime examples.

The U.S. military wins without difficulty. There are really two scenarios here:

1. Conventional War: The United States has a well-trained, well-equipped military that is quite large. Our air power is the envy of the rest of the world; our navy equally so. In terms of technology, we are number one. These factors, when combined, seem to me to be enough to outweigh any numerical disadvantage that the U.S. now faces.

2. Nuclear War: The United States would most likely be able to defeat the combined nuclear might of the rest of the planet in the event of such a war. Of course, there is a very high probability that significant portions of the planet (including the U.S.) would be rendered uninhabitable for varying degrees of time, and civilization itself would be in serious jeopardy.

Also, in the case of an invader actually reaching U.S. soil (which would require a military alliance by a significant portion of the world), there are still citizens to be reckoned with. The average U.S. citizen is still extremely nationalistic at heart, and any invader would find itself dealing with a resistance movement of unparallelled strength.

Even setting aside whatever bias I may personally feel as a U.S. citizen, there can be little doubt as to who has the world's strongest military.
Ah, yes, I would LOVE to be the guy responsible for occupying New York or LA. That would be hell in the first degree unless you leveled most of the city.

As if it would stand a chance anyway :rolleyes:

Are you kidding? Israel has among the best standards of training in the world, not to mention great technology. The Merkava 4 would beat any Abrams tank anyday.

Israel would beat the US and Arab forces initially, but after years of fighting they would be too exhausted. Standing armies, however, Israel would come out on top once again.

Are you kidding? Israel has among the best standards of training in the world, not to mention great technology. The Merkava 4 would beat any Abrams tank anyday.

Israel would beat the US and Arab forces initially, but after years of fighting they would be too exhausted. Standing armies, however, Israel would come out on top once again.
Hmm seeing as Israel is surrounded by a host of angry Arab nations, many of which have huge capital reserves, powerful militaries and fierce racist tendencies towards Israel, is thousands of miles away from the USA and seeing as the USA is the country with the highest proportion of GDP spent on a military budget, I don't think that is likely at all. Its also a tiny nation. Plus its divided from within. It would fall quite fast. Turkey is right next door as well, and whilst Turkey may no longer be what it was, its still a threat to be reckoned with. The EU and Russia might even join in, either for economic reason or to ensure that the war leaves them unaffected, and thus side with the USA and Arab nations. Oh, and then there is China, which has economic interests in protecting the Arab nations.

Now remind me which war was it where the US lost?


And if Israel attacked the US that would be the best way to get every other middle eastern country to become allies with the US. Israel wouldn't stand a chance.

And remind me when was the last time the US has fought a nation larger than themselves?

The US has been successful at kicking the crap out of smaller nations, while Israel has fought nations over ten times their population, not to mention many more resources as well. Also, the Israeli superiority in technology has been recent. 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 were fought using WWII surplus equipment verses Arab armies with top of the line (of the day) technology.

You can't be serious.
You haven't been paying attention to his posts. Oh, he's serious.

Actually as of just a few months ago, India has the largest army

No.

PLA has the largest army. But IINM, India does have the largest all-volunteer army. I think PLA is not a conscript army anymore, but not sure.

Hmm seeing as Israel is surrounded by a host of angry Arab nations, many of which have huge capital reserves, powerful militaries and fierce racist tendencies towards Israel, is thousands of miles away from the USA and seeing as the USA is the country with the highest proportion of GDP spent on a military budget, I don't think that is likely at all. Its also a tiny nation. Plus its divided from within. It would fall quite fast. Turkey is right next door as well, and whilst Turkey may no longer be what it was, its still a threat to be reckoned with. The EU and Russia might even join in, either for economic reason or to ensure that the war leaves them unaffected, and thus side with the USA and Arab nations. Oh, and then there is China, which has economic interests in protecting the Arab nations.

You underestimate Israel. Israel's neighbors have been beaten many times, the war between Israel and it's neighbors wouldn't really be a contest. Israel would destroy entire standing armies and force them to surrender. Turkey isn't hostile toward Israel-in fact, it's one of the few countries in the region that mantain diplomacy.

The Merkava 4 would beat any Abrams tank anyday.
I'm not sure...the Merkava is great in Urban environments, and great for crew safety, but in a large-scale tank battle, and the new Abrams all equipped with German 155 guns, I think the Abrams would take it.

You haven't been paying attention to his posts. Oh, he's serious.
Indeed.

You underestimate Israel. Israel's neighbors have been beaten many times, the war between Israel and it's neighbors wouldn't really be a contest. Israel would destroy entire standing armies and force them to surrender. Turkey isn't hostile toward Israel-in fact, it's one of the few countries in the region that mantain diplomacy.
Turkey would risk further angering its fellow Islamic nations? Hmm, I doubt it. Furthermore, would it risk losing the USA as an ally? Although Turkey is no longer a potent military force, its still a nasty enough nation.

Vanuatu. When everyone else have blown each other to bits, they'll be the last ones left standing.

US has most powerful army. A combination of training, size, and the best military technology gives the US the top spot.

Now, as for the best trained army, I vote Israel.

Israel wiped the floor with its enemies every time Israel and the Arab nations have fought. Mainly because of superior Israeli training, inferior Arab training, and sheer dumb luck.

Turkey would risk further angering its fellow Islamic nations? Hmm, I doubt it. Furthermore, would it risk losing the USA as an ally? Although Turkey is no longer a potent military force, its still a nasty enough nation.

Turkey has stayed out of all wars with Israel since the beginning. And if it was allied with the US, it wouldn't necessarily have to go to war with Israel.

Israel could beat any European military as well, hands down. Europe had it's time to shine, now it's over.

Indeed.
Jeez, considering how many times you've opted to insinuate yourself into my debates with other posters i know, it's funny this is all you have to say.
Who's puppet are you anyway> No way a total n00b like you could harbor that kind of animosity toward someone you don't know, like me. (?)

Turkey has stayed out of all wars with Israel since the beginning. And if it was allied with the US, it wouldn't necessarily have to go to war with Israel.

Israel could beat any European military as well, hands down.
I'll believe that when I see it ;) European includes Russia btw.

Jeez, considering how many times you've opted to insinuate yourself into my debates with other posters i know, it's funny this is all you have to say.
Who's puppet are you anyway> No way a total n00b like you could harbor that kind of animosity toward someone you don't know, like me. (?)
Umm, one minute. I am in no way harbouring any kind of animosity towards you. I don't hold grudges. I don't even know which posters you know or not. Don't read into things that aren't there.

I'll believe that when I see it ;) European includes Russia btw.

Russia, without nukes, could not take Israel. They had a hard time securing Chechnya, for Gods sake. If they can't deal with a tiny nation of approximately 1 million with no standing army, how can they deal with Israel. France couldn't take Israel, they are hopelessly outclassed in several categories. The only nation that would pose a threat would be the United Kingdom.

Russia, without nukes, could not take Israel. They had a hard time securing Chechnya, for Gods sake. If they can't deal with a tiny nation of approximately 1 million with no standing army, how can they deal with Israel. France couldn't take Israel, they are hopelessly outclassed in several categories. The only nation that would pose a threat would be the United Kingdom.
Yet the combined force of the EU and Russia surely would be enough, would it not?

Umm, one minute. I am in no way harbouring any kind of animosity towards you. I don't hold grudges. I don't even know which posters you know or not. Don't read into things that aren't there, okay?
I've had to tell you more than 3 times to "keep out of it" in pretty personal conversations, so far. I'm not arguing animosity, just strange targeting.
It's a bit bizarre considering I don't know jack about you, and likewise.
You have jumped on my case where you didn't belong. I'm not looking for an apology, nor do I want you to ignore me.
I's just like to see you be less concerned. Cool?

Israel could beat any European military as well, hands down. Europe had it's time to shine, now it's over.
What's with the aggression? You think Europe wants to go to war with anyone?
It didn't want to go to war with its enemies, and it most certainly won't want to go to war with its friends.

Yet the combined force of the EU and Russia surely would be enough, would it not?

Probably. But Israel would give them hell :sniper:

I've had to tell you more than 3 times to "keep out of it" in pretty personal conversations, so far. I'm not arguing animosity, just strange targeting.
It's a bit bizarre considering I don't know jack about you, and likewise.
You have jumped on my case where you didn't belong. I'm not looking for an apology, nor do I want you to ignore me.
I's just like to see you be less concerned. Cool?
Which threads? :confused: There was the one, which I do admit I was out of order, but I don't recall any previous encounters with you, except in the Communism thread where we came to agreement. Trust me, I am not concerned, nor am I targetting you :confused:

Probably. But Israel would give them hell :sniper:
Its never fought Europeans before :)

Umm, the US could destroy Isreal within hours if they were willing to use a shock and awe strategy.

Umm, the US could destroy Isreal within hours if they were willing to use a shock and awe strategy.
Indeed. The US has never really deployed its full power against a nation. One so small as Israel, whilst well able of defending itself, would not survive long.

Also, if wasn't for US support, Israel would exist.

No, Israel would destroy any initial attempt of the US to buildup their forces.

You underestimate Israel. Israel's neighbors have been beaten many times, the war between Israel and it's neighbors wouldn't really be a contest. Israel would destroy entire standing armies and force them to surrender. Turkey isn't hostile toward Israel-in fact, it's one of the few countries in the region that mantain diplomacy.
are you kidding!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Israel just sits there gobbling up a billion $$$ a day from American Jews and claims that it should have rights to the land over the native arab population because it is holy land.:eek: The Iranian president has even suggested moving the jews to europe, where they are wlcome, instead of leaving it in the Middle East to cause conflict

Also, if wasn't for US support, Israel would exist.

What do you mean by that?

You're thinking only on land, the US would only have to bomb Isreal into the ground, they could win without even puting boots on the ground.

What do you mean by that?
Israel gets a billion $$$ a day from America and has American support in case of a military conflict

are you kidding!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Israel just sits there gobbling up a billion $$$ a day from American Jews and claims that it should have rights to the land over the native arab population because it is holy land.:eek: The Iranian president has even suggested moving the jews to europe, where they are wlcome, instead of leaving it in the Middle East to cause conflict
And let history repeat itself? Well, that would certainly shift the blame from Iran to Europe :p

Which threads? :confused: There was the one, which I do admit I was out of order, but I don't recall any previous encounters with you, except in the Communism thread where we came to agreement. Trust me, I am not concerned, nor am I targetting you :confused:
That's why I thought I'd bring it up... we seemed to be on good terms.
Either way, it's all good. :)
Maybe I was wrong, but glad to hear I was, then.
[/hijack]

are you kidding!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Israel just sits there gobbling up a billion $$$ a day from American Jews and claims that it should have rights to the land over the native arab population because it is holy land.:eek: The Iranian president has even suggested moving the jews to europe, where they are wlcome, instead of leaving it in the Middle East to cause conflict

Why should they move when most Israelis were born in Israel? They have just as much right to the land as the Palestinians.

That's why I thought I'd bring it up... we seemed to be on good terms.
Either way, it's all good. :)
Maybe I was wrong, but glad to hear I was, then.
[/hijack]
Alright, you misunderstood, I misunderstood, we are cool :)

And let history repeat itself? Well, that would certainly shift the blame from Iran to Europe :p
or move it to North America;)

Heh, who voted for Iran? I hope you weren't serious.

Heh, who voted for Iran? I hope you weren't serious.
i think the bigger joke is the 3 people who voted for Israel

They weren't, you can read tehy're post around 5 or so

You're thinking only on land, the US would only have to bomb Isreal into the ground, they could win without even puting boots on the ground.
Israel is considered to have the best trained and equipped air force. It is arguable thatthey would do pretty damn well against americas bombing attempts...not that this is ever going to happen...

Israel gets a billion $$$ a day from America and has American support in case of a military conflict

No, it doesn't get a billion a day.

American support has had very little to do with the survival of Israel. All crucial wars were fought with little or no help from America. For the most part, Israel has survived through the tenacity of its people.

I could say that America wouldn't exist without the help from France, which is true. Where did most of the guns and ammunition come from, and who tied up the vast majority of British troops elsewhere? America would have easily lost if it actually faced the full brunt of the British military arsenal.

Why should they move when most Israelis were born in Israel? They have just as much right to the land as the Palestinians.
Europe would never allow it anyway, not with the current problems its having with immigrants.

No, it doesn't get a billion a day.

American support has had very little to do with the survival of Israel. All crucial wars were fought with little or no help from America. For the most part, Israel has survived through the tenacity of its people.

I could say that America wouldn't exist without the help from France, which is true. Where did most of the guns and ammunition come from, and who tied up the vast majority of British troops elsewhere? America would have easily lost if it actually faced the full brunt of the British military arsenal.
The USA(and Russia, the UK and French resistance forces) did actually help you exist in a certain way. Hitler would have annihilated all Jews given the chance. Although he initially advocated deportation, he switched to genocide. Had he not been defeated, you would be exterminated.

According to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces) on the United States armed forces (we all know how reliable that is, but meh), ". The United States Armed Forces is the most powerful military in the world and their power projection capabilities are unrivaled by any other singular nation (e.g. People's Republic of China, Russia, India) or organization (e.g. the European Union)."

I'm not basing my opinion on THAT, but I believe the United States is the MILITARILY most powerful nation on Earth (as well as Economically, but if you count organizations the E.U. is slightly more powerful in that department). Our training for our soldiers isn't the best (it's pretty darn good, but not as good as, say, the British), but our size and equipment more than makes up for it. Our Airforce isn't the largest (I believe the Chinese hold that honor), but it's the strongest. Our Navy is the strongest AND the largest (I'm not so sure on the latter part, but I think the Russian navy is smaller, and since that was the USN's biggest rival...well, ever), not to mention the war-machine the United States can be if it's motived enough, all factor in to us being the most powerful nation on Earth military wise. And our nuclear arsenal doesn't hurt, either.

Now if only our government wouldn't get us stuck in stupid wars, or at least not go at them half-assed...

Israel is considered to have the best trained and equipped air force. It is arguable thatthey would do pretty damn well against americas bombing attempts...not that this is ever going to happen...

I think stealth as well as cruise missiles would play a huge role in this, the US would probably just launch such an insanely large attack that Isreal couldn't properly respond, plus, the US is brutally efficient when it comes to destroying things.

No, it doesn't get a billion a day.

American support has had very little to do with the survival of Israel. All crucial wars were fought with little or no help from America. For the most part, Israel has survived through the tenacity of its people.

I could say that America wouldn't exist without the help from France, which is true. Where did most of the guns and ammunition come from, and who tied up the vast majority of British troops elsewhere? America would have easily lost if it actually faced the full brunt of the British military arsenal.
i didnt say that america would exist without france. and israel does get a billion $ a day.

No, Israel would destroy any initial attempt of the US to buildup their forces.
Fact of the matter is also though that the Israeli fleet is pretty tiny, compared to the navies of some other countries.
Ergo, Israel could not project its force far enough to attack the US, or even Europe.

Plus, the numbers would make it. There are only so many Israelis that can drive tanks and fly planes. Numberwise they are small players, such that even superior training becomes somewhat less important.

Israel may have 300 or 400 tanks and planes, but the US would counter that with thousands.

So the argument would have to be settled that the US could take out Israel if they really wanted to.

Factoring in all variables. Based on:
nuclear arsenals
type and # of tanks
air superiority
the entire navy(including the subs)
army strength
training
effectiveness
military history

I'll say the US. Who else could go through so many wars and only get 2 draws and 0 losses(Vietnam was a draw. The treaty says so)? No one. Plus, the US has allies. Great allies, like the UK. Unfortunately, some UK citizens and politicians hate the US. I don't really know why. Iraq was legal(you violate the treaties and you're asking to get attacked.) and there's no definite proof of torture or what is and isn't torture(there are those of you who define torture as "anything America/Bush/your political opponents/etc. does/do".

Actually, what do you call the war of 1812? People these days...

Regardless, the US has the best military. Biggest (and most advanced) naval fleet, third largest in numbers, largest and by far most advanced air force, a number of special forces that rivals many nations complete army, some of the best equipment ever, and new shit being pumped out every year in terms of technology. Not to mention, that last I checked, we also had the best tanks in terms of accuracy, speed, power, mobility and durability.

However, I do believe that we lag behind our other capabilities in terms of productions rates, although they are extremely high.

Oh, and the pilots are quite possibly the best trained, although the grunts and sailors aren't so much. They're pretty good, just not the best.

According to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces) on the United States armed forces (we all know how reliable that is, but meh), ". The United States Armed Forces is the most powerful military in the world and their power projection capabilities are unrivaled by any other singular nation (e.g. People's Republic of China, Russia, India) or organization (e.g. the European Union)."

I'm not basing my opinion on THAT, but I believe the United States is the MILITARILY most powerful nation on Earth (as well as Economically, but if you count organizations the E.U. is slightly more powerful in that department). Our training for our soldiers isn't the best (it's pretty darn good, but not as good as, say, the British), but our size and equipment more than makes up for it. Our Airforce isn't the largest (I believe the Chinese hold that honor), but it's the strongest. Our Navy is the strongest AND the largest (I'm not so sure on the latter part, but I think the Russian navy is smaller, and since that was the USN's biggest rival...well, ever), not to mention the war-machine the United States can be if it's motived enough, all factor in to us being the most powerful nation on Earth military wise. And our nuclear arsenal doesn't hurt, either.

Now if only our government wouldn't get us stuck in stupid wars, or at least not go at them half-assed...

US navy is vastly larger than Russia's

Why should they move when most Israelis were born in Israel? They have just as much right to the land as the Palestinians.

This is only a relatively recent phenomenon though: up until 1975 immigrants made up a greater part of the Israeli population than native born Israelis.

I think stealth as well as cruise missiles would play a huge role in this, the US would probably just launch such an insanely large attack that Isreal couldn't properly respond, plus, the US is brutally efficient when it comes to destroying things.
:D we are indeed....

The USA(and Russia, the UK and French resistance forces) did actually help you exist in a certain way. Hitler would have annihilated all Jews given the chance. Although he initially advocated deportation, he switched to genocide. Had he not been defeated, you would be exterminated.

And we could've been so much more powerful if the US and the UK would've bombed the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps.

I think stealth as well as cruise missiles would play a huge role in this, the US would probably just launch such an insanely large attack that Isreal couldn't properly respond, plus, the US is brutally efficient when it comes to destroying things.

Destroying things much smaller than itself...

And we could've been so much more powerful if the US and the UK would've bombed the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps.
How ungrateful.

i think the bigger joke is the 3 people who voted for Israel

I don't. Israel could and has whupped Iran before. But they're both jokes compared to US military capability.

And we could've been so much more powerful if the US and the UK would've bombed the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps.
but that wouldve been expensive, and shown an unpressidented amount of humanity on our part...god forbid...

Destroying things much smaller than itself...

Which, incase you haven't noticed, Isreal is ;)
But when it comes to killing things the US is the best, we've just never been any good at occupying stuff.

but that wouldve been expensive, and shown an unpressidented amount of humanity on our part...god forbid...
Plus that might have helped people.
It was just so much easier to just firebomb German civilians instead.

How ungrateful.

You can't possibly be serious.

And we could've been so much more powerful if the US and the UK would've bombed the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps.

Thus leaving the inmates with absolutely no food supplies rather than the meagre ones they did receive?


...and since when would it have been in the best interests of the UK and the US to promote the power of a nation which at that time didn't even exist other than in people's hearts?

...but then the Jews could have bombed the supply routes in Burma and thus saved the lives of thousands of allied troops. (Yes, I know this makes no sense, but it makes as much sense as your post).

Plus that might have helped people.
It was just so much easier to just firebomb German civilians instead.

and cheaper, too. besides, they were all Nazi's, right?

...Right?

You can't possibly be serious.
The Allies saved you from utter and complete obliteration. Be thankful at least for that. To say that you could be more powerful if they had done more though? Wow... Or is it all or nothing?

USA for teh win!1111111

Seriously, though, I have yet to see any valid argument as to how any 1 nation's standing army could beat the US. As for the EU and/or Russia and China, meh, why even dare to think of such things? Such a conflict would certainly doom civilization as we know it, being that *Iran* an irresponsible country *Iran* would fire its nukes *Iran* and start a nuclear holocaust *cough*cough*Iran.* But that's just my fiercely conservative, blindly supporting G.W.Bush, Christian opinion...

[/uselessrant]

Since I made the dick comment about the obvious nature of the question-in-question, let me say:
We should be ashamed of ourselves if we abuse the obvious.

The Allies saved you from utter and complete obliteration. Be thankful at least for that. To say that you could be more powerful if they had done more though? Wow... Or is it all or nothing?

Not by much. Hitler killed 6 million of Europe's 8.2 million Jews. The UK and the US had the power to do it, but were to lazy to save millions of lives. I'm ungraveful for the millions of lives lost.

Not by much. Hitler killed 6 million of Europe's 8.2 million Jews. The UK and the US had the power to do it, but were to lazy to save millions of lives. I'm ungraveful for the millions of lives lost.
Be happy that you survived at least.

PS: If Hitler had won, it wouldn't be just 8.2 million Jews that would be die. It would be any Jew that got in his way.

Be happy that you survived at least.

PS: If Hitler had won, it wouldn't be just 8.2 million Jews that would be die. It would be any Jew that got in his way.

Besides the American population, there wouldn't be much left. I'm still angry at the preventable deaths.

Not by much. Hitler killed 6 million of Europe's 8.2 million Jews. The UK and the US had the power to do it, but were to lazy to save millions of lives. I'm ungraveful for the millions of lives lost.
I've been dying to post this story somewhere, but I didn't think it warranted its own thread.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,389491,00.html

Anyways, it's pretty obvious that the Allies did not go to war with Germany because of the Holocaust, and that they could've done more.
Nonetheless, Israel profited a lot from support from Jews in America and Europe, and then with time also their government (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4515708.stm) and the lot of money that does go to Israel every year (at the moment it's 2.6 billion dollars, equating to 7.2 million dollars a day - source (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html)).

[Kicks your ass]

:sniper:
Aaahahahahahahahaha! Not on your BEST day, dweeb! :p

Besides the American population, there wouldn't be much left. I'm still angry at the preventable deaths.
That is assuming he didn't take over America as well. Or that an American president with Nazi sympathies (apparently, there were those in the USA with considerable power who were Nazi, according to the book the Plot against America). In any case, this is besides the point. This thread is about the discussion of military power, not the actions of the Allies.

We should be ashamed of ourselves if we abuse the obvious.
It's like the arguments about whose dad could kick whose dad's ass, pointless and quite stupid, but people like a bit of nationalist dick waving now and again.
Plus, this kind of thread gives me a chance to tout my knowledge of tiny European countries, like Luxemburg, and talk about Turkmenistan.

Maybe that some militaries have longer training times, and some also add some political training as well.
Longer training times indicate an inability to learn on the part of those being trained, and "political training" is verboten in the US military. :p

Not by much. Hitler killed 6 million of Europe's 8.2 million Jews. The UK and the US had the power to do it, but were to lazy to save millions of lives. I'm ungraveful for the millions of lives lost.

Tell me, what nation do you draw your roots from?

Besides the American population, there wouldn't be much left. I'm still angry at the preventable deaths.
Its also argueable that, with hitlers support, Japan would have conquered america. So the world would be nothing more than blood-thirsty Ariyans.

Maxima, your arguement implies that, though most of the Jews died due to americas early innaction, they should be greatful we did anything at all. This is like asking the Native Americans to be greatful that, though we exterminated the majority of their population, they should be greatful towards us for sparing a few thousand of them.

Acting too late is damn near as bad as not doing anything at all. Had we moved on Hitler before he invaded Poland, there would have been less dead jews, and less napalmed Germans.

No, wait - it's Togo, isn't it? Crafty Togoans, one day we'll be thankful they moved in and put an end to our ludicrously overlong dalliance with Democracy.

Longer training times indicate an inability to learn on the part of those being trained, and "political training" is verboten in the US military. :p
Did you read the links? I think it's a pretty good idea. It's not like indoctrination, it's just trying to get people to be good representatives of the people they are meant to defend.
And to be honest, I think the US Military has gotten itself into something of an image crisis in recent years, partly because some of its members turned out to be nothing more than yokels with a gun.

Its also argueable that, with hitlers support, Japan would have conquered america. So the world would be nothing more than blood-thirsty Ariyans.

Maxima, your arguement implies that, though most of the Jews died due to americas early innaction, they should be greatful we did anything at all. This is like asking the Native Americans to be greatful that, though we exterminated the majority of their population, they should be greatful towards us for sparing a few thousand of them.

To answer your former point, Aryans was a misnomer specifically ascribed to those of the germanic race. It was confused with Ehre, and was wrongfully used. Germanic is the correct term. Furthermore, the world would be full of fascists, as Japanese are not "aryans." They were vehemently racist though.

Secondly, the difference is the Allies weren't the ones killing the Jews. In the case of the Native Americans, the colonists were the perpetrators. A more appropriate analogy would be saying that the Jews should have been grateful to the Nazis, had they spared their lives (hypothetically). I am not arguing this though.

Maxima, your arguement implies that, though most of the Jews died due to americas early innaction, they should be greatful we did anything at all. This is like asking the Native Americans to be greatful that, though we exterminated the majority of their population, they should be greatful towards us for sparing a few thousand of them.

Reliable intelligence concerning the widespread slaughter of Jews wasn't available until the summer of '42, and so it is unfair to blame either the US or the UK for inactivity, particularly 'early inactivity'.

Reliable intelligence concerning the widespread slaughter of Jews wasn't available until the summer of '42, and so it is unfair to blame either the US or the UK for inactivity, particularly 'early inactivity'.
Really? I had learned that FDR knew by around 1938And if we knew, you can be certain the British knew.

Really? I had learned that FDR knew by around 1938And if we knew, you can be certain the British knew.

FDR knew about Death Camps in 1938? Really?

FDR knew about Death Camps in 1938?
:D
apperently, one of us has their info crooked. Theirs only one way of knowing who. Google time!!

FDR knew about Death Camps in 1938? Really?
He was psychic. ;)

He was psychic. ;)

Maybe like the blind are supposed to experience a sharpening of their other senses in order to compensate, FDR developed the ability to see the future in order to make up for the loss of use of his legs.

rofl @ people who said other

He was psychic. ;)
it really doesnt seem all that far-fetched. If a single american got into a Concentration camp and lived to tell the government, they would know. from the footage I saw, you could see the bodies from the fence outside.

rofl @ people who said other
France and Germany, amongst others, were not included in the poll, so its a valid option.

rofl @ people who said other
The army of Luxemburg, man, LUXEMBURG! That ain't a poll option, and they are so going to take the rest of you fools down.

The army of Luxemburg, man, LUXEMBURG! That ain't a poll option, and they are so going to take the rest of you fools down.
Hmm what is Luxembourg's big secret then? :p

it really doesnt seem all that far-fetched. If a single american got into a Concentration camp and lived to tell the government, they would know. from the footage I saw, you could see the bodies from the fence outside.

The stacks of bodies which wouldn't be there until spring 1941 in the death camps which wouldn't even start to be built until 1940? If this doesn't count as far-fetched in 1938 then you and I have somewhat different definitions of the term 'far-fetched'.

The majority of people are saying that the U.S has the most powerfull millitery, which is true ( even i will admit that) but it is far from being the best, the american soldier is outclassed by the british soldier in every way, both your basic and combat infantry training is shorter and less in depth that ours, the level of fitness in general is mutch lower e.g the level of an american special forces soldier like a green beret when they finnish there special forces training is the equivilent that a british soldier has to get to qualify for special forces training like the S.A.S ( Special Air Service). American soldiers are cocky beyond being confident, arrogent, and not as disciplined as there british counter part. The american millitery think they can make up for bad soldiering with hi-teck equipment witch is not the case and infact has even helped to create a joke in the british army about the american soldiers " all the gear and no idea". the british army is the best in the world (thats not me boasting its a fact) and if we didnt have such a crap government we would be the most powerfull too.

oh yea and although the american milletery has the majority of better weapons and technoligys we still have the best tank, the Challenger 2 whicth blows every other tank off the battle field

Hmm what is Luxembourg's big secret then? :p
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/lu/Military

bonechilling...

*draws .45 in fear*

The majority of people are saying that the U.S has the most powerfull millitery, which is true ( even i will admit that) but it is far from being the best, the american soldier is outclassed by the british soldier in every way, both your basic and combat infantry training is shorter and less in depth that ours, the level of fitness in general is mutch lower e.g the level of an american special forces soldier like a green beret when they finnish there special forces training is the equivilent that a british soldier has to get to qualify for special forces training like the S.A.S ( Special Air Service). American soldiers are cocky beyond being confident, arrogent, and not as disciplined as there british counter part. The american millitery think they can make up for bad soldiering with hi-teck equipment witch is not the case and infact has even helped to create a joke in the british army about the american soldiers " all the gear and no idea". the british army is the best in the world (thats not me boasting its a fact) and if we didnt have such a crap government we would be the most powerfull too.

oh yea and although the american milletery has the majority of better weapons and technoligys we still have the best tank, the Challenger 2 whicth blows every other tank off the battle field
The British are a warrior race after all :) Have been and always will be.

oh yea and although the american milletery has the majority of better weapons and technoligys we still have the best tank, the Challenger 2 whicth blows every other tank off the battle field

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the last time a Challenger II tank blew another tank off the battlefield it was another Challenger II that it brewed up, no?

The stacks of bodies which wouldn't be there until spring 1941 in the death camps which wouldn't even start to be built until 1940? If this doesn't count as far-fetched in 1938 then you and I have somewhat different definitions of the term 'far-fetched'.
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/ww2Timeline/camps.html

didnt they kill people from the start?:confused: please enlighten me!

Russia, without nukes, could not take Israel. They had a hard time securing Chechnya, for Gods sake. If they can't deal with a tiny nation of approximately 1 million with no standing army, how can they deal with Israel. France couldn't take Israel, they are hopelessly outclassed in several categories. The only nation that would pose a threat would be the United Kingdom.

Israel vs. the UK? Now that would be one HELL of a goddamn spectacle to witness.

Israel vs. the UK? Now that would be one HELL of a goddamn spectacle to witness.
Spectacle, good choice of word ;) :p

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/ww2Timeline/camps.html

didnt they kill people from the start?:confused: please enlighten me!

A concentration camp is not the same thing as a death camp, and that appears to be what is confusing you.

Figures for the deaths per year in Buchenwald:

1937 - 48
1938 - 771
1939 - 1235
1940 - 1772
1941 - 1522
1942 - 2898
1943 - 3516
1944 - 8644

Should the deaths of 819 people by the end of 1938 been sufficient for the US to declare war on Germany?

...we still have the best tank, the Challenger 2 whicth blows every other tank off the battle field
Almost.

Spectacle, good choice of word ;) :p

Agreed :)

A concentration camp is not the same thing as a death camp, and that appears to be what is confusing you.
my bad...:D

Hmm what is Luxembourg's big secret then? :p
The fact that most people who don't live in Luxembourg can't find it. They could strike with impunity, harrying their foes from a tiny country while the CIA and equivalent organizations desperately leaf through the indexes of their Atlases.

Agreed :)
Or so you think :p

The fact that most people who don't live in Luxembourg can't find it. They could strike with impunity, harrying their foes from a tiny country while the CIA and equivalent organizations desperately leaf through the indexes of their Atlases.
Isn't Monaco even tinier? :p

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the last time a Challenger II tank blew another tank off the battlefield it was another Challenger II that it brewed up, no?


no the last time a challenger 2 blew another tank off the battle field was in Iraq, we dont shoot at our own tanks we leave that to the americans

Or so you think :p

Or we could set aside are differences, and work toward fighting evil...
No, i think the UK v. Israel would be too interesting.

Or we could set aside are differences, and work toward fighting evil...
No, i think the UK v. Israel would be too interesting.
So do I, just for different reasons which I shall not promulguate :p

Isn't Monaco even tinier? :p
Yes, but Luxembourg has the added advantage of being hard to spell.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Military

Not really super impressing. I'd have to agree, the UK is something of a military power, but not as great as even Israel. I think that the UK have overestimated themselves for hundreds of years, and they still do.

Yes, but Luxembourg has the added advantage of being hard to spell.
What about Liechtenstein then ? (I think its a nation of its own)

The answer is so obviously Canada. :p

No, seriously, I say the USofA

What about Liechtenstein then ? (I think its a nation of its own)
They don't have a military though (or at least, the CIA has decided that they don't).

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Military

Not really super impressing. I'd have to agree, the UK is something of a military power, but not as great as even Israel. I think that the UK have overestimated themselves for hundreds of years, and they still do.
didnt the british empire (including colonies) once cover 75% of the earth? (I may be wrong, considering my accuracy so far this thread...:rolleyes: )

no the last time a challenger 2 blew another tank off the battle field was in Iraq, we dont shoot at our own tanks we leave that to the americans

Oh noes, the lizard people in the BBC are lying to us all!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2887235.stm

...and the lizard people in the Guardian...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922141,00.html

...and the lizard people in the MoD...

http://news.mod.uk/news_headline_story2.asp?newsItem_id=3791

Hint: actually knowing the facts does slightly help your credibility on this forum.

didnt the british empire (including colonies) once cover 75% of the earth? (I may be wrong, considering my accuracy so far this thread...:rolleyes: )
25% of the earth...still the largest empire in history, in terms of population (500 million).

Factoring in all variables. Based on:
nuclear arsenals
type and # of tanks
air superiority
the entire navy(including the subs)
army strength
training
effectiveness
military history

I'll say the US. Who else could go through so many wars and only get 2 draws and 0 losses(Vietnam was a draw. The treaty says so)? No one. Plus, the US has allies. Great allies, like the UK. Unfortunately, some UK citizens and politicians hate the US. I don't really know why. Iraq was legal(you violate the treaties and you're asking to get attacked.) and there's no definite proof of torture or what is and isn't torture(there are those of you who define torture as "anything America/Bush/your political opponents/etc. does/do".
dont be so naive/foolish, vietnam wasnt a draw...
im not sure of this is correct... but i heard canadians burned the white house once or something like that...

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Military

Not really super impressing. I'd have to agree, the UK is something of a military power, but not as great as even Israel. I think that the UK have overestimated themselves for hundreds of years, and they still do.
Hardly surprising considering who its current government is.

25% of the earth...still the largest empire in history, in terms of population (500 million).
:eek:
well, at least I accounted for the part not covered by britain....
and, if you want to talk population, isnt china bigger? or do they not qualify as an "empire?"

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk/Military

Not really super impressing. I'd have to agree, the UK is something of a military power, but not as great as even Israel. I think that the UK have overestimated themselves for hundreds of years, and they still do.

all that crap on paper means nothing its just a statistic cooked up by a pencil pusher who has no idea of what it is to be a soilder. Any soilder that has been in contact with a british soilder in a war situation will tell you that we are the best army in the world. our women aint the prittyest our weather not the sunnyest but were the toughest bastard fighters in the world

:eek:
well, at least I accounted for the part not covered by britain....
and, if you want to talk population, isnt china bigger? or do they not qualify as an "empire?"
Its not an empire. Russia is larger in terms of landmass though, and it is (or was) an empire.

dont be so naive/foolish, vietnam wasnt a draw...
im not sure of this is correct... but i heard canadians burned the white house once or something like that...
wasn't that like the pearl harbor of 1812? didnt we recover, and shred ass?

all that crap on paper means nothing its just a statistic cooked up by a pencil pusher who has no idea of what it is to be a soilder. Any soilder that has been in contact with a british soilder in a war situation will tell you that we are the best army in the world. our women aint the prittyest our weather not the sunnyest but were the toughest bastard fighters in the world
Oh come on, British women are definitely attractive...maybe not the prettiest, but from what I have seen, they are at least pretty. :p

our women aint the prittyest our weather not the sunnyest but were the toughest bastard fighters in the world

...of course one of the ironies here is that the generally acknowledged 'toughest bastard fighters' in the British Army are actually Nepalese rather than British.

Not really, the war of 1812 wasn't really decisive, except maybe the Battle of New Orleans.

lol! Yes, we did!

Dead Vietcong/communists: 950,000
Dead Gi's: 58,000

Ratio: ~17:1

That's similar to the Kill:Death ratio on the Eastern front for the Germans. It was 15:1.

Oh noes, the lizard people in the BBC are lying to us all!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2887235.stm

...and the lizard people in the Guardian...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922141,00.html

...and the lizard people in the MoD...

http://news.mod.uk/news_headline_story2.asp?newsItem_id=3791

Hint: actually knowing the facts does slightly help your credibility on this forum.

fair point it did happen, but it was a once in a blue moon incident concidering how many shells we fired in that conflict is was bound to happen sooner of later

...of course one of the ironies here is that the generally acknowledged 'toughest bastard fighters' in the British Army are actually Nepalese rather than British.
And outside of the British army, aren't both the Russians and Germans a force to be reckoned with (I mean in the past at least...both countries aren't what they used to be)?

That's similar to the Kill:Death ratio on the Eastern front for the Germans. It was 15:1.

Battle Deaths?

Axis- Upwards of 4 million
Soviet- 7 to 8 million

Civilian deaths are far higher for the Soviets (18 million), but I don't think that should be included.

fair point it did happen, but it was a once in a blue moon incident concidering how many shells we fired in that conflict is was bound to happen sooner of later

So you'll be retracting that dig at the Americans then?

we dont shoot at our own tanks we leave that to the americans

...given that they have fired many more shells in the conflict such incidents are bound to happen more often with American forces, yes?

dont be so naive/foolish, vietnam wasnt a draw...
im not sure of this is correct... but i heard canadians burned the white house once or something like that...

That was the British me thinks. Then....we won....yeah...

And outside of the British army, aren't both the Russians and Germans a force to be reckoned with (I mean in the past at least...both countries aren't what they used to be)?

Russia, no, it failed miserably trying to take Chechnya.

Germany has been untested in any large scale engagment since WWII, so it would be impossible to tell.

Russia, no, it failed miserably trying to take Chechnya.

Germany has been untested in any large scale engagment since WWII, so it would be impossible to tell.
I meant before (and including) WW II for both countries.

Modern Germany would have to rebuild its military significantly if it wanted to reclaim its former status as a warrior nation.

And outside of the British army, aren't both the Russians and Germans a force to be reckoned with (I mean in the past at least...both countries aren't what they used to be)?

Well, certainly if you look at the later stages of WWII they were greatly respected as individual soldiers. Interestingly the same can be said for the Poles, the Canadians and the ANZAC forces, whereas with the US forces it was very much a case of logistics, rather than actual skill in other fields of soldiering, being the outstanding quality of the forces there.

I meant before (and including) WW II for both countries.

Oh, well, a completely different story!

Well, certainly if you look at the later stages of WWII they were greatly respected as individual soldiers. Interestingly the same can be said for the Poles, the Canadians and the ANZAC forces, whereas with the US forces it was very much a case of logistics, rather than actual skill in other fields of soldiering, being the outstanding quality of the forces there.
Indeed, but I think of all the Germans had the most ferocious reputation, in both WW I and WW II.

...of course one of the ironies here is that the generally acknowledged 'toughest bastard fighters' in the British Army are actually Nepalese rather than British.

Nepalese that fight in the british army, are no matter what race they are, representing the british army as one whole fighting machine therefor there accivements are achivements for Great Britian not nepal, and i was comenting that the british soilder in general are the toughest in the world

I'm not sure why this is a question. It might be in 20 years, but the idea that any country could challenge the US in a conventional war is almost laughable.

If someone said Germany, their army is severely restricted by the post World War II treaty. I don't think they have an airforce or a navy, and they certainly don't have an army that could hope to challenge any of the above nations in a war.

Nepalese that fight in the british army, are no matter what race they are, representing the british army as one whole fighting machine therefor there accivements are achivements for Great Britian not nepal, and i was comenting that the british soilder in general are the toughest in the world

Achievements for 'Great Britain' alone?

I'm not sure why this is a question. It might be in 20 years, but the idea that any country could challenge the US in a conventional war is almost laughable.

If someone said Germany, their army is severely restricted by the post World War II treaty. I don't think they have an airforce or a navy, and they certainly don't have an army that could hope to challenge any of the above nations in a war.
In the future though I am sure Germany will rearm...WW II treaties are becoming antique now. Even so, the EU will form a military branch in a few years, so it doesn't really matter that much.

Indeed, but I think of all the Germans had the most ferocious reputation, in both WW I and WW II.

I would have thought that if you wanted ferocity then the Japanese would have been the ones to look towards (or possibly even the Koreans who were themselves treated like dogs by the Japanese). Ferocity on its own is only part of why you would respect a soldier's fighting ability - frex, the Japanese ferocity was so intense that it was deeply counter-productive when it came to actual tactics and deployment.

So you'll be retracting that dig at the Americans then?



...given that they have fired many more shells in the conflict such incidents are bound to happen more often with American forces, yes?

ok i take your point on board, i think that we can both agree that people died needlessly because of negligence on both sides

I would have thought that if you wanted ferocity then the Japanese would have been the ones to look towards (or possibly even the Koreans who were themselves treated like dogs by the Japanese). Ferocity on its own is only part of why you would respect a soldier's fighting ability - frex, the Japanese ferocity was so intense that it was deeply counter-productive when it came to actual tactics and deployment.
Oh I wasn't referring to pure ferocity, I meant on the whole that the Germans are generally some of the toughest soldiers out there. Though I will agree with you on that, the Japanese lend a new meaning to the word ruthless.

Britain v. Israel would probably result in a quick Israeli victory.

First, Britain would wipe out Israel's navy. Unfortunately, the air war over Israel would be a slaughter, as Israeli pilots combine superior training and experience to defeat the RAF. If Britain decided to launch a land assault anyway, not only would they be continually strafed by Israeli pilots, they would be outnumbered, as the entire IDF (which, when they call up the reserves) easily outnumbers any invasion force. If the ENTIRE ROYAL ARMY attacked Israel, they would be outnumbered about 20:1, assuming the British didn't use conscription.

Of course, with the Royal Navy still in position, Israel could not launch an attack on Britain. So, I guess it's actually a draw.

I'm not sure why this is a question. It might be in 20 years, but the idea that any country could challenge the US in a conventional war is almost laughable.

If someone said Germany, their army is severely restricted by the post World War II treaty. I don't think they have an airforce or a navy, and they certainly don't have an army that could hope to challenge any of the above nations in a war.

Yeah, but Germany really has no reason to have a large standing military. I doubt Poland or France would attack them.

Yeah, but Germany really has no reason to have a large standing military. I doubt Poland or France would attack them.
Not within the EU, no. But it might rearm in the future under the guise of a larger EU army.

Achievements for 'Great Britain' alone?

yes although the gurkers are proud of who they are and where they come from they made the choice to serve britain and so by reperesenting the british army there accevments are dedicated to queen and country

Oh I wasn't referring to pure ferocity, I meant on the whole that the Germans are generally some of the toughest soldiers out there.

All depends how you define 'toughest', obviously - arguments can be made for Filipino irregulars living entirely off the land and taking on the Japanese armed only with pointed sticks and bows and arrows or for the Siberian-based Soviet troops as pretty darn 'tough' under certain definitions - if nothing else they proved themselves able to operate highly effectively without any real logistical support.

Well, certainly if you look at the later stages of WWII they were greatly respected as individual soldiers. Interestingly the same can be said for the Poles, the Canadians and the ANZAC forces, whereas with the US forces it was very much a case of logistics, rather than actual skill in other fields of soldiering, being the outstanding quality of the forces there.
I'm not sure that's true in other wars. American troops, throughout history, have an outstanding record as individual soldiers. It's hard to argue that the Revolutionary War was won based on good generalship. The same can be said (largely) of the draw that was the War of 1812, as American soldiers fought largely on their own with little central direction or planning (which, with the exception of the otherwise abominable Andrew Jackson, was mostly incompetant). The Mexican War was no contest, so it's hard to draw conclusions, although the Alamo is indicative of enormous individual skill. The Civil War showed remarkable mastery of arms by individual soldiers. The Spanish-American War was not much of a war. In World War I, American soldiers were enormously respected by their German opponents, particularly after one engagement in wood which caused the Germans to nickname the Marines "Hellcats." Whatever you think of the subsequent American wars, there's little evidence indicating the individual soldiers were not skilled with their weapons.

I'd actually like to see the evidence that individual American soldiers in World War II were not particularly skilled.

yes although the gurkers are proud of who they are and where they come from they made the choice to serve britain and so by reperesenting the british army there accevments are dedicated to queen and country

Not the United Kingdom then?

Yeah, but Germany really has no reason to have a large standing military. I doubt Poland or France would attack them.
Well, someone mentioned Germany as a potential country with a powerful military. My point was that this was false.

All depends how you define 'toughest', obviously - arguments can be made for Filipino irregulars living entirely off the land and taking on the Japanese armed only with pointed sticks and bows and arrows or for the Siberian-based Soviet troops as pretty darn 'tough' under certain definitions - if nothing else they proved themselves able to operate highly effectively without any real logistical support.
The Germans also fought fiercely against the Russians and various other nations in a multitude of wars though.