NationStates Jolt Archive

Not the United Kingdom then?

no not at all its the british army not the united kingdom army. i my self am a irish citizen serving in the british army and when i joined the army i swore alegence to queen of england not to the republic of ireland. so my achevements in the british army are for britain not for Ireland just the same as the gurkers achevements are for britain not for nepal

Anyone who can make a case for any country aside from the U.S. is either a gifted writer, or lying.

I'm actually in shock number two is China. Although they have a ridiculous amount of manpower, get real; Israel has the best trained Air-Force in the World.

Life after death.
Biggy/Pac

I'm not sure that's true in other wars.

I never claimed it was, but post-1941 or thereabouts the American war machine has focused intently upon logistics in order to win wars (and so far has had startling success based upon that emphasis).

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

Certainly early in the war they were widely regarded as inexperienced, but are also credited with learning quickly from their mistakes - look at the Kasserine Pass for example. To put it simply their shorter involvement in the war gave them less time to learn, and if we look at those American troops who were recognised as highly experienced and particularly effective then we have to look at the Marines in the Pacific, and it was these troops who had the longest experience of the war.

Why my obsession with American forces and logistics? Because if we look at the tactics employed by the Americans compared to their allies we see a marked difference in the way they operated - typical British tactics to take out a pillbox would be to lay down suppressing fire with infantry while a tank can be brought up to engage the fortification and provide covering fire for a close assault with whatever infantry happen to be on hand, whereas American tactics were closer to something like this:

1.) identify position of pillbox.
2.) call in a co-ordinated divisional artillery strike on the target
3.) if the target is still standing call in an airstrike
4.) if the target is still standing call in a tank section
5.) if the target is still standing then call in mechanised infantry from the surrounding area so as to overwhelm it with close assault by specialist engineer teams

no not at all its the british army not the united kingdom army. i my self am a irish citizen serving in the british army and when i joined the army i swore alegence to queen of england not to the republic of ireland. so my achevements in the british army are for britain not for Ireland just the same as the gurkers achevements are for britain not for nepal

Great Britain is not the same thing as the United Kingdom nor is it the same thing as the British Isles. You seem to be experiencing some severe difficulty being able to tell these terms apart.

The British army is the army of the United Kingdom, not of Great Britain.

Jesus, I thought they might actually teach soldiers what the hell the country they were fighting for was called, but I see I was sadly mistaken.

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.

Two corrections here:

1) The Revolutionary War was won PURELY by good generalship on the part of Washington. A bunch of farmers vs. the global Empire? Come on.

2) We lost the War of 1812. New England was occupied and Washington was burned to the ground. People only think we won because Jackson managed to eek in a huge victory in New Orleans before news of the Treat of Ghent made it back here. Deal with it, I have. Just a lesson that when Euros get pissy about trade, be on your guard.

Two corrections here:

1) The Revolutionary War was won PURELY by good generalship on the part of Washington. A bunch of farmers vs. the global Empire? Come on.
Also, at the time of the Revolution the Americans were still British colonists. Not Americans in the modern sense of the word. France also did much to help the revolutionaries by pouring in aid at a point were Britain had tipped the balance.

Two corrections here:

1) The Revolutionary War was won PURELY by good generalship on the part of Washington. A bunch of farmers vs. the global Empire? Come on.

Nothing to do with the fact that the British Army had supply lines stretching thousands of miles while the revolutionary forces had for the most part grassroots support?

And Germany's not even on the list...:pJust the other day some yankee boy claimed Germany didn't even have an army :p

But to answer the original question, it's obviously the Americans. To adress the others:

1) All China has to rely on is pirated technology and Soviet-style million-man-rush tactics. And we know how well that worked for the Soviets. **coughAfganistancough**

2) Europe is not a nation. Accept this fact and move forward.

3) Yes, Germans do fight quite ferociously. Perhaps that has something to do with why their military was forcibly demolished after WWII?

4) Same with Japan

5) European countries in particular COULD rival American military power if they actually funded defense instead of 37-hour work weeks. Too bad (or good?) that'll never happen.

Just the other day some yankee boy claimed Germany didn't even have an army :p

Well for all intents and purposes they don't. What do they use it for?

2) Europe is not a nation. Accept this fact and move forward.

3) Yes, Germans do fight quite ferociously. Perhaps that has something to do with why their military was forcibly demolished after WWII?

4) Same with Japan

5) European countries in particular COULD rival American military power if they actually funded defense instead of 37-hour work weeks. Too bad (or good?) that'll never happen.
I disagree with point 2. It will one day become a federal nation of some kind, but maybe without the UK if it decides to form a stronger Commonwealth as an alternative to the EU.

I agree on all other accounts though, yet still I disagree with you in that point 5 will never happen. You seem to sure about the future. Anything and everything is possible.

1) The Revolutionary War was won PURELY by good generalship on the part of Washington. A bunch of farmers vs. the global Empire? Come on.
I don't think there's any historical evidence to support that. And here's mine (http://www.americanpresident.org/history/GeorgeWashington/biography/LifeBeforePresidency.common.shtml):
George Washington was not a great general but a brilliant revolutionary. Although he lost most of his battles with the British, year after year he held his ragtag, hungry army together. This was his most significant accomplishment as commander of the American forces. One French officer wrote: "I cannot insist too strongly how I was surprised by the American Army. It is truly incredible that troops almost naked, poorly paid, and composed of old men and children and Negroes should behave so well on the march and under fire." Knowing that one great victory by his army would undermine support in England for their endless foreign war, Washington patiently waited year after year for the right circumstances. The British relentlessly dared Continental forces to fight a line-to-line battle in the open. But Washington stayed with his own hit-and-run tactics, forcing the frustrated British to play the game by his rules. He kept their main army bottled up in New York much of the time, wary of fighting him.

The British altered their strategy in 1778 and invaded the South. The new plan was to secure the southern colonies and then march a large army northward, forcing the rebellion out of upper America. It was a mistake. While they captured Savannah, Georgia, in 1778 and Charleston, South Carolina, in 1779, the British found themselves fighting a guerrilla war, facing shadowy bands of expert snipers. An American soldier, fighting in and for his homeland, could work on his own while a Redcoat could not. Colonial troops could move twice as fast as their equipment-heavy enemies, and every English soldier killed or captured meant a new one had to be sent from England -- a journey of several weeks that weakened British presence elsewhere in their empire. By 1781, the war was deeply unpopular in England.

2) We lost the War of 1812. New England was occupied and Washington was burned to the ground. People only think we won because Jackson managed to eek in a huge victory in New Orleans before news of the Treat of Ghent made it back here. Deal with it, I have. Just a lesson that when Euros get pissy about trade, be on your guard.
We also burned the capital of Canada. The British were stopped right after their landing near Washington at McHenry. And New England was never occupied. There was a seccesionist movement, but it failed. I agree the US didn't win the war. It's what's called a draw. They happen sometimes.

Nothing to do with the fact that the British Army had supply lines stretching thousands of miles while the revolutionary forces had for the most part grassroots support?
And the Americans were never in the same situation as the British were then a little less than 200 years later...

We all know how that one turned out.

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".LOL... you are 95% wrong...

You only got one thing right...

Well for all intents and purposes they don't. What do they use it for?
Being the first line of defence against the Soviet onslaught.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr

Today, primarily peacekeeping.
German forces are stationed in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, the Somalian coastline, the Mediterranean and the Sudan. Plus training of Iraqi forces in Qatar I believe. Plus the base in Uzbekistan from which the Afghanistan mission is organised and supplied.

Well for all intents and purposes they don't. What do they use it for?

Did the whole Afghanistan malarky escape your notice?

the title is flawed. military might is not the only measure of powerWhat is THE Most Powerful Country on Earth?

Mine. (There is zero arrogance in my answer... I am just stating a simple fact)

What is THE Most Powerful Country on Earth?

Mine. Any way you look at it.. military Power , Economic Power, Diplomatic Power... It is not even close...

A more interesting Question would be

Who is Number 2?

Plus I found these links. Surely no one can say that Germany doesn't have an army.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-army.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-army-equip.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-navy.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-navy-equip.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-airforce.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-airforce-equip.htm

These might not be complete lists by the way...I'm pretty certain the Navy got a set of new U-Boats (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/) recently.

Future Plans: http://sicherheitspolitik.bundeswehr.de/12/9.php

Plus I found these links. Surely no one can say that Germany doesn't have an army.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-army.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-army-equip.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-navy.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-navy-equip.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-airforce.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-airforce-equip.htm

These might not be complete lists by the way...I'm pretty certain the Navy got a set of new U-Boats recently.

Future Plans: http://sicherheitspolitik.bundeswehr.de/12/9.php
Where do you find the time to locate all these links? I must say you are very clued up though :) You can always substantiate what you say.

Where do you find the time to locate all these links?
Google. I :fluffle: Google!

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

About The Holy See. Being that it is its own government, what if the Pope called upon all Catholics to sign a extended dual citizenship from their current nation to that of the Vatican, effectively making you a true Catholic as considered by the church only if you put yourself under a form of citizenship with the Roman Catholic church. Or was to call upon all Catholics across the world to arm in a holy war? Though I doubt many Catholics would go through with it or continue feeling the same about their faith, but with religious fanaticism as it is, I wonder just how many would. They would effectively be more transparent than terrorist cells at first, maybe even high ranking Catholic military officials of large world powers would consolidate military secrets for their faith. It would probably, in the least, make more trouble than Al-Qaida if the Pope wanted to "conquer the world" in this way. What other large religion has such a centralized & unchecked leadership?

The Pope could go further. He could attempt to annex majority Catholic nations.
Poland, Ireland, Malta, and the Phillippines would go first, followed by Italy and Spain. France would say "Non", denying the Vatican nuclear weapons. Portugal, Austria, Slovakia, Croatia, and Slovenia come in later. Meanwhile, Latin America with the exception of Cuba join en masse. A quick Crusade brings Cuba into the fold. Puerto Rico separates from the US to join, and other Carribean territories follow suit.

Result: Papal Empire controls Italy, Austria, Ireland, the Iberian Peninsula, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Malta, the Phillippines, Poland, and the entire Western Hemisphere south of the US.

Later, missionizing in Hungary and the Czech Republic creates a Catholic upsurge, despite the best efforts of US Protestants. France still says "Non", but Belgium and (shudder) Luxembourg say "Oui". Lithuania joins, along with many African countries.

Catholic scientists flock to the Papal Empire, but the Pope refuses to develop nuclear weapons. However, missionaries in France are on the verge of bringing France into the Papal Empire.

France finally joins the Papal Empire.

The Pope has gone from controlling an enclave in Rome to ruling a globe-spanning empire. Along the way, he has acquired territory on every continent except Oceania and Antartica.

Next thing you know, some power-hungry pope proposes a Crusade...

Germany still sittin' nicely...go our agent in the Vatican!

Two corrections here:

1) The Revolutionary War was won PURELY by good generalship on the part of Washington. A bunch of farmers vs. the global Empire? Come on.

1) The Vietnam War was one purely on the good generalship of some Vietnamese guy. A bunch of silly Asian farmers vs. the global Empire? Come on.

169 people as of now voted for the USA, when in reality Saudi Arabia has America by the balls and isn't afraid to yank...

The arrangement between Saudi Arabia and the US is such: Saudis give us oil, we give them big bucks - and we defend them. The Saudis know that they are militarily weak, due to their small population, and no amount of equipment or training can change that. If Saudi Arabia cuts off the oil supply, the US will withdraw from Saudi Arabia, leaving the Kingdom defenseless.

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

Size, yes

Logicsical capabilities, yes

Combat experiance, no. US special operations officers are given the simmilar levels of training as British rank and file

Technological advantage, no. The European armies do have many edges on the Americans. They are just smaller and are not as noticed.

If Saudi Arabia cuts off the oil supply, the US will withdraw from Saudi Arabia, leaving the Kingdom defenseless.
And vice versa...

And vice versa...

Nuclear submarines? ;)

Not necessarily. Cut off from Saudi oil, the US will do a number of things:
Suck ANWR dry
Restrict/ban SUVs
Research new technologies

The US military will get priority for oil. Oh, and you can bet the Navy will scrap every non-nuclear ship in the fleet faster than you can say "target practice".

Alternatively:
Invade Saudi Arabia. DO NOT TOUCH MECCA!

Not necessarily. Cut off from Saudi oil, the US will do a number of things:
Suck ANWR dry
Restrict/ban SUVs
Research new technologies


...of course, as I'm sure you know, the US actually imports more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia. Maybe y'all should be looking North and not eastwards.

I was thinking more the trillions of dollars of investment the House of Saud and its associates have in the US right now.
Should anything happen to the ruling classes in Saudi Arabia, it'll hurt. Badly.

Switzerland



Come on. I cannot be the only person who has heard of the Gnomes of Zurich

It's pretty certain that the US maintains the most powerful and capable military in the entire world. Sure, the Russian Federation maintains a large nuclear force, but it's conventional arm is in shambles. The PRC maintains are large land army, but their air capability is severely lacking, their navy is a brown water force that lacks any aircraft carriers.

Military wise, probably China. USA lost to farmers in hats during Vietnam, I don't care what anyone tries to say to make them look good in this one. In WW2, Russia did most of the work, and heck, if the military has no heart and guts it's weak. BTW, here is something new for all of you: Did you know that only 15%-20% of U.S. soldiers actually fire their weapons? According to research, they feel guilty if they shoot so they shoot elsewhere to miss purposely or they just don't shoot. How can you win like this? China for me! :mp5: :sniper:

Israel? Seriously, everyone get real. Best trained airforce, maybe. But it is a small airforce, with limited tech. USAF using the raptors would have air superority in about 2 hours, with minimal losses. Russian Federation airforce is at least 10 times the size of the Israeli airforce, but I am sure they would just cruise missile them first... even if they diddn't just by sheer numbers of comparable airplanes, they win. Promptly followed by heavy artillery and bombing runs on the ground forces (for both US and Russian forces...or China for that matter...bombers can be old and low tech and still rape...B-52, I say no more) Israel is small, with a skilled, but very limited in size airforce. They are not nearly as powerful as everyone makes out. They have no allies around them for supply line, they have a small airforce, and a pointless navy. And not terribly high industral capacity or native industry to make air assests. (they use F-15 F-16 and Ah-64...seems like all their air assests are made in the USA, meaning if the USA goes to war v Israel they have no replacements and no source of parts for maintance)

I am going to say for a top 3, under different condtions, locations and types of war
USA, China and Russia. Varying with the type of conflict, location of conflict (cold winter war in trenchs? jungle combat? desert combat with MOUT? )

Interesting point. Lets pit your 3 in a naval situation. USA has a modernized navy. Russia is modernizing. And CHina.... the subs are coming, the subs are coming:eek: . They arent quite modernized, they have a few battleships and not enough aircraft carriers.

USA hands down for a naval war... Maybe in 10 years it will be different, but for right now. But my point was not to list all the possible scenerio's, it was just to illustrate that various powers are better various things then each other.

Russia and the United Kingdom are both declining world powers. The UK had the start of its decline after WWII, and Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Both are really just relics of an older world.

Between China and the US, I'd say in about 20 years China will have the superiority over the US in terms of naval and ground forces power. It's airforce still leaves much to be desired, although they have the largest in the world.

Russia is a re-emerging power. It fell to its lowest in the mid to late 1990's Since then it has been trending up, not down. Which means if it continues its current growth, it will become a world power again.

On the high seas, the US has unparalleled superiority. With the best attack subs and carriers in the world, no navy can challenge the United States Navy.

Need proof? Read SSN by Tom Clancy, where one Los-Angeles Class submarine almost single-handedly defeats the Chinese Navy.

The reason some people are voting for Israel is that Israeli troops are well-trainedm well-equipped, and most have recent combat experience. Their main disadvantage is size and a weak navy. If we increase Israel from 6 million to 200 million... then NOBODY would mess with Israel.

Oh, and in a few years Israel will have Raptors. And Israeli pilots have more combat experience than their American counterparts.

Strongest militaries by category:

Pound-for-pound: Israel.
Although Israel lacks the highest levels of technology and suffers from chronic lack of morale, woe be unto those who oppose the Israelis. The IDF is not a force to be messed with. Espcially not since every man and woman over the age of 18 has been trained to fight in the IDF.

Sheer Numers: People's Republic of China.
The world's largest nation with the world's largest army. Their air force and navy is pathetic, however. Watching the PRC try to invade Taiwan would be like trying to watch the Wehrmacht swim across the English Channel to reach England during the Second World War. In a war of defense, however, or even most wars of offense that occur on the same continent, one will likely be doing a lot of falling back.

Most Capable: United States of America.
The United States has the world's best navy and the longest reach of any nation on earth. In a war against nearly any other nation (excepting China and/or Russia), the United States would quickly sweep away opposition from a combination of high technology, well-trained soldiers, and sheer fire power. In a war of defense, the United States is a continental power, like China and Russia, making it all but impossible to defeat through invasion.

USA hands down, all the Nuclear Subs. If the USA's subs fire their missles, it would literally be the end of the world

Yes it would be, cause you'd have Russian and Chinese Missiles to clear out the US and her Allies, as the US missiles zoom off to clean out SCO and its allies.

I believe we should call the SCo (shanghai co-operation organization) a military, since they do have military pacts (its China, Russia, a few -istan countries and Belarus) It is a very formidable force. (if people wanted to include the EU, I say the SCO can go cause it actaully has military pacts)

I found something about the Eurofighter which might interest some.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005

Yes it would be, cause you'd have Russian and Chinese Missiles to clear out the US and her Allies, as the US missiles zoom off to clean out SCO and its allies.

I believe we should call the SCo (shanghai co-operation organization) a military, since they do have military pacts (its China, Russia, a few -istan countries and Belarus) It is a very formidable force. (if people wanted to include the EU, I say the SCO can go cause it actaully has military pacts)

China and Russia? On the same side? I'll believe that when I see it.

China and Russia? On the same side? I'll believe that when I see it.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2005/russia-050818-rferl01.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-08/26/content_472288.htm

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051004-024339-6028r

http://images2.sina.com/english/z/050822mission/U12P6T13D109F52DT20050826023044.jpg

The United States fo certain has more firepower than any other nation on earth, unless someone is VERY good at playing hide and seek with nuclear warheads.

But this thread was (somewhat deceptively in my opinion) titled "THE Most Powerful Nation on Earth". I believe that title would actually go to China, which is the most weathy. China could demand the USA repay it's fucking enormous loan and they'd be screwed. It's probably going to happen too.

USA hands down, all the Nuclear Subs. If the USA's subs fire their missles, it would literally be the end of the world

Explain to me how this is a good thing, would you?

Explain to me how this is a good thing, would you?

I don't think he was passing moral judgement on the thing. Although it did seem to me, based on how he wrote it, that it was something to be proud of.

Actually Jerry, the US is still the wealthiest nation. There's simply a prediction that china will be wealthier by 2050, and even then, it would be because of shier numbers. China would be the economic world power, but the average american citizen would still be 8 times richer then any chinese citizen.

In regards to the military strength, it's non-debatable that the US is the most powerful. It has the highest budget for the military, the largest amount of troops except for the Army in which china has more, better technology, and better everything in general.

The top 4 militaries are The United States, The United Kingdom, France, and Italy.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2005/russia-050818-rferl01.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-08/26/content_472288.htm

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051004-024339-6028r

http://images2.sina.com/english/z/050822mission/U12P6T13D109F52DT20050826023044.jpg

Wow. I think the Sino-Russian alliance just gave me what six years of Bush II couldn't do: Shock and Awe. I think I'll move to a neutral country, now.... How's New Zealand this time of year?

Geez, the question was who is the most powerful nation. I am putting in that the USA has the most deadly subs around. Frankly, if all of the USA's subs launched all their nuclear war heads the Earth is, frankly dead.

Proud? Man, text can be read many ways. For sure. Proud, not at all. Scary is the word to express my feelings on it

Actually Jerry, the US is still the wealthiest nation. There's simply a prediction that china will be wealthier by 2050, and even then, it would be because of shier numbers. China would be the economic world power, but the average american citizen would still be 8 times richer then any chinese citizen.

In regards to the military strength, it's non-debatable that the US is the most powerful. It has the highest budget for the military, the largest amount of troops except for the Army in which china has more, better technology, and better everything in general.

The top 4 militaries are The United States, The United Kingdom, France, and Italy.

Peh. In terms of wealth (GNP), the US has about 20 times more than China per capita.

My theory is that as China gets richer, our business will leave to other cheap labour locations, crippling the Chinese economy. That or we finally get some energy breakthroughs with Fusion (over in France their making the first fusion reactor), in which case most things will become automated, and move to the US to avoid transportation costs, (the US being the biggest consumer on Earth).

Also, Italy's military is laughable.

My list goes like so:

US, China, GB, Russia, India, Germany, France, Pakistan, Israel and then a plethora of other nations that don't really matter militarily.

Actually Jerry, the US is still the wealthiest nation. There's simply a prediction that china will be wealthier by 2050, and even then, it would be because of shier numbers. China would be the economic world power, but the average american citizen would still be 8 times richer then any chinese citizen.

In regards to the military strength, it's non-debatable that the US is the most powerful. It has the highest budget for the military, the largest amount of troops except for the Army in which china has more, better technology, and better everything in general.

The top 4 militaries are The United States, The United Kingdom, France, and Italy.

North Korea has more troops than the United States. That probably has something to do with the fact that in North Korea you can join the army or starve to death, but I digress. I would argue against those nations listed. The top six doesn't even include Italy. They are, if I recall properly, and in order of spending from greatest to least:

United States of America
People's Republic of China
United Kingdom
Japan (so what if they're actually just cops with F-15s!? And tanks. And missile destroyers.)
Russian Federation
France

lol! Yes, we did!

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

Ratio: ~17:1

Victory in war is not defined by casualties inflicted. Victory is successfully imposing your will upon the enemy, and thus making him act/do what you wish. Once an army/state has achieved this is has 'won.' If you go by numbers lost then, by all accounts, Russia lost World War II.

We did not win in Vietnam, and calling it a draw is a bit generous (and I am an ardent patriot and military supporter- I nearly entered into the service but was denied against my wishes).

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.

*Raises tall, frosty mug of Guinness to denote concurrence.*

North Korea has more troops than the United States. That probably has something to do with the fact that in North Korea you can join the army or starve to death, but I digress. I would argue against those nations listed. The top six doesn't even include Italy. They are, if I recall properly, and in order of spending from greatest to least:

United States of America
People's Republic of China
United Kingdom
Japan (so what if they're actually just cops with F-15s!? And tanks. And missile destroyers.)
Russian Federation
France

Japan has close to no military that isn't dependant on the US.

The top 4 militaries are The United States, The United Kingdom, France, and Italy.
Italy???

That comes as a surprise to be honest. How about Spain? At least they buy decent equipment.

Japan has close to no military that isn't dependant on the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces
Their equipment is pretty good, and they realise that they have to deal with a North Korean attack of some sort by themselves, because the Americans and South Koreans will be busy.

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.

Well, adjectives fail me here...

Although India and China have a billion 'potential soldiers,' (and that's if they allow women to fight), I cannot imagine the amount of effort and logistical 'stress' exerted to mobilize, arm, organize, and sustain an army of that size. The US military's stength lies in the fact that it is proportionately smaller, swifter, more versatile, more adaptable, more logistically capable and more precise than the US military of the past and also many of its contemporary rival/allies (save for the UK, France, and a few others).

Curiously, has anyone actually read the US National Security Strategy or official US military doctrine? For that matter who has studied warfare at large?

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.

War tends to stimulate the economy, as was shown by WWII. It sure as hell wasnt FDR who pulled us out of the Depression, it was some Japanese pilots and Hitlers insistence on the offensive, not to mention the industrious American people. I vote America.

Actually Jerry, the US is still the wealthiest nation. There's simply a prediction that china will be wealthier by 2050, and even then, it would be because of shier numbers. China would be the economic world power, but the average american citizen would still be 8 times richer then any chinese citizen.

In regards to the military strength, it's non-debatable that the US is the most powerful. It has the highest budget for the military, the largest amount of troops except for the Army in which china has more, better technology, and better everything in general.

The top 4 militaries are The United States, The United Kingdom, France, and Italy.

I like you, you believe (like myself, if I have interpretted your post correctly) that a nation's strength is first measured by economic clout then military prowess. Russia 'lost' the Cold War because it could no longer compete (not necessarily directly) with the Juggernaut that is the US economy.

I don't think he was passing moral judgement on the thing. Although it did seem to me, based on how he wrote it, that it was something to be proud of.

So are we in agreement that the US military is a bad thing?

I like you, you believe (like myself, if I have interpretted your post correctly) that a nation's strength is first measured by economic clout then military prowess. Russia 'lost' the Cold War because it could no longer compete (not necessarily directly) with the Juggernaut that is the US economy.

Despite this oft-repeated claim, it is my experience from talking to people who lived under Communist rule in the Eastern Bloc that it wasn't actually a failue of the economy that caused the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, but rather people getting right royally fucked off with being ruled over by an authoritarian system and constantly being told what they could and couldn't do.

Despite this oft-repeated claim, it is my experience from talking to people who lived under Communist rule in the Eastern Bloc that it wasn't actually a failue of the economy that caused the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, but rather people getting right royally fucked off with being ruled over by an authoritarian system and constantly being told what they could and couldn't do.

I do not deny that, and Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost certainly did not help much either. But, systemically I believe, the US outlasted the USSR because it had the superior economy. Thus, its citizens were more well-off and content. I think that popular dissent and revolt was an immediate cause, a cause that had been long-brewing, but immediate nonetheless. And I have spoken to people who lived under Soviet rule. They mostly stated that they grew discontent because of economic malady AND authoritarian rule.

They mostly stated that they grew discontent because of economic malady AND authoritarian rule.

So we are both in agreement that Stalin was more instrumental in the collapse of the Eastern Bloc than Reagan (despite the overblown elegies here that accompanied his demise a year or so ago)?

Tis rather interesting that over the past five years, the russians have systematically beaten the USAF in war games as they have several superior aircraft. The fact that they only have five of these aircraft however, may account for their inability to take on the Yanks.

Lol

So are we in agreement that the US military is a bad thing?

The American military is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It is simply another instrument of foreign policy, no more or less moral than backroom (and not so back room) deals signed in American and other Embassies all over the world.

That said instrument has the capability to turn the whole of our little blue and brown ball into the universe's largest marble speaks more of Man's folly than of the morality of the American military.

That said instrument has the capability to turn the whole of our little blue and brown ball into the universe's largest marble speaks more of Man's folly than of the morality of the American military.

Are you now claiming that folly stands beyond moral judgement?

Are you now claiming that folly stands beyond moral judgement?

Beyond the judgement of us. It is for our children and our children's children to decide. They may think less of us for our follies, but if we don't make them, they'll never learn.

But, assuming that our follies were to be held accountable to a code of morality, then we would all share the blame for them. For it is folly inherent in mankind, and not folly that is consciously decided upon except as deterrence. There are those who claim (and perhaps rightly so), that by allowing nuclear weapons to proliferate far and wide, war might be avoided, due to the risk of starting a nuclear holocaust.

For instance: North Korea is an infinitely more "evil" nation than Iraq was. But they had nukes. Peace prevailed. Iraq did not, war ensued.

The US troops are experienced(Afghanistan and Iraq). I do not know where this notion is coming from...

So we are both in agreement that Stalin was more instrumental in the collapse of the Eastern Bloc than Reagan (despite the overblown elegies here that accompanied his demise a year or so ago)?

I love Ronald Reagan (ironic that I was only alive for two years of his presidency), in fact I own a shirt that bears his likeness and says "Viva La Reagan Revolucion!" But to answer your question, yes, I agree that Stalin, and more so Communism itself, orchestrated the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. Reagan successfully navigated America past the Scylla and Charybdis that was the Carter administration and stagflation. America won the Cold War because it outlasted the USSR in a 'war of attrition,' to be rough. The Soviets shot themselves in the foot repeatedly, which is why their system collapsed. As I said, I love Reagan, but I dare not presume that he alone felled the Soviet Beast.

Everyone knows the secret freemason army of undead cyber-zombie Elvis-clones can take over the world any day.

Seriously, everyone knows that it is the United States, the only country in the world that spends about the same as the whole of the rest of the world on its military because the rest of the world hates Bush.
j/k :)
I have no idea why the United States thinks that it needs to spend cold war funding on its military, now that there is no "REAL" enemy left. Bush just has to create one every few years to justify the military expenses. Maybe the rest of the world does hate Bush.

Training, equipment and officer corps: UK
Funding: USA
Political Will: China
Size: Russia

But the best has to be Israel. As they are constantly "at war", their AFV designs in particular are strongest, and they have a mix of good technology and reliable weapons. The Merkava is perhaps the best modern tank design.

China of course few billion people the only way you could get enough ammo is if the bullets were made in China

You could say America has the best military but you have to remember China owns half of America

Um, is there a unified EU military? No? Oh, that might be why.

Ever heard of the European rapid reaction force?

The US troops are experienced(Afghanistan and Iraq). I do not know where this notion is coming from...

But the British army are far more experianced (Faulklands, NI, Sierra Leione AND Afghanistan and Iraq etc).

Strongest military?
The people, once united in a great revolution to overthrow all means of power.

Everyone knows the secret freemason army of undead cyber-zombie Elvis-clones can take over the world any day.

They're a good second:p

If US wasn't there, Germany would have the strongest army on earth, they have great technology, their discipline is far more that that of the american soldiers.

Remember WWII they were outnumbered 10 to 1 and still they were able to inflict heavy damage to the enemy on both fronts.

The russian were far to numerous, they were like the chinese now, you kill one and 10 more will take his place.

Lool at ya'll for neglecting the might that is the army of Sweden!!

We totally roXor!!

That comment was just as good and relevant the 6th time as it was the first. Good show, old boy.
I can't take the credit. I couldn't have done it without Jolt's miserable server technology to assist me.

We also burned the capital of Canada. The British were stopped right after their landing near Washington at McHenry. And New England was never occupied. There was a seccesionist movement, but it failed. I agree the US didn't win the war. It's what's called a draw. They happen sometimes.

actually, the US burned york (now toronto). the capital and, incidentally, military target was kingston. there was not much achieved by the US in occupying york. they did not even succeed the capturing or destroying the partially completed firgate (brock) which was under construction there.

the US did manage to destroy a supply dump.

then, from a lack of entertainment, the US troops started looting and buring civilian homes and a few days later withdrew. not exactly the finest moment in US military history.

conversely, when washington was torched, the burning was restricted to public buildings. the local population provided their own looting - much to the shock of the british troops.

now, about the wining or losing... the expressed purpose (US objective) in the war of 1812 was to occupy canada and remove the british from the continent. the canadian (british) objective was to survive. at the sigining of the treaty, all US attacking forces had been repelled (with a couple of serious US armies shattered), part of maine was under occupation, the british were blockading the eastern seaboard and were begining landings on US soil (away from the US/canadian border) - washington and new orleans are the most known of these. the british were repulsed at fort mcherny.

the treaty called for a return to the status quo. this is a failure in US objectives and a success in the canadian one. this constitutes a loss for the US military. politically, it was agreed by the involved parties to call it a draw. the US wasn't prepared to suffer a protracted war on it's soil with the possibility of being defeated and the british weren't prepared to fight another major war haven't just dispatched napoleon.

first, let's take nuclear weapons out of the equasion. hands down, the US could rain radioactive genocide on much of the world. there are a few other nuclear powers who wouldn't like this and could do the same to the US. france, the UK, and russia would all be able to strike. anyway, that argument is moot.

second, military power is and extension of a nation's policy and is characteristic of it. this is really important.

now, for a mobility focus and global projection, the US wins. the USN ans USAF are extremely good at this. only the former soviet union comes close. the UK is still capable of it but not the same extent. france pretends.

for protracted regional engagements, china gets my vote. they have decent equipment and LOTS of troops. they are also well indoctrined to fight. in the korean war, it was china that prevented the defeat of the north koreans and pushed the UN (mostly US forces and equipment) to a ceasefire.

also consider taiwan, they have a sizeable army and good equipment AND the support of the USN/USAF. in a conflict with china, their survivability can be measured in weeks unless the US chose to enter a general war with china itself. such an engagement would be long and bloody. remember, japan tried this in the 1930s.

so, it depends on what you're trying to do. today, global projection belongs to the US but this does not mean it can win in every region. there are many places where it would get messy really fast.

for armies, I'd say the US is likely the best equiped and maintained. it's soldiers are good. other armies have better solders, though, when you consider general training and dedication (i'm omitting elite units, here, as they do not form the bulk of a nation's standing army).

when you vector all variables into the equation the US wins hands down purely because of its ability (except as mentioned before by people in certain theatres)

The Uk really is not that far up on the list due to a MASSIVE lack of equipment for its standing army (let alone reservists), its navy is small and becoming dated (for shame for shame), its airforce is also becoming dated.. we should scrap the euro fighter and buy american imho. There are always equipment failures (look at iraq and afghanistan. The primary british weapon for its infantry was constantly jamming in the most unfortuante of times.)


The 2 reasons i would say America is losing power (in the sense of discipline) FRIENDLY FIRE and CIVILIAN CASUALTIES

subnote: Although weapons were found, the americans and the brits DID NOT ALLOW THE UN TO FINISH ITS JOB that is what made the war illegal. The only reason i support troops being there now is because you MUST finish what you start.

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.


true... but we have just spent quite a bit of money having them upgraded by those nice gentlemen form Heckler and Koch...


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


true :D :P

Combination of size, logistical capabilities, combat experience, and technological advantage make the US military the strongest.
same here of course it's obviuos other than Russia there are near enough the biggest country you can get.

And when it was the cold war few!! i'm, glad no bombs were set off, the amount they had they could DESTROY THE EARTH !!!! (but not exactly):p

And just to say my fav. would have to be UK because of the SWAT teams and MI6 :D
(but there not the best)

The US forces are very good at projecting them selves against a conventional army, but seem to lack skills in dealing with irruglar forces. However, I think they could win in any theater except the Central Asian area, in which a can of whoop ass the size of Russia and China would be opened in the form of a protracted, heavy *ground* war. With 100,000's of deaths. (and the US public bitches at 2000 over 2 years)

Lool at ya'll for neglecting the might that is the army of Sweden!!

We totally roXor!!
That we does!!!eleventyone

Iceland is dangerous as well... They've got a coastguard!

Though in effectiveness - Israel.

And just to say my fav. would have to be UK because of the SWAT teams and MI6 :D
(but there not the best)

Spetznas is, I think, undoubtedly the best military elite unit around. Just the fact that any Spetznas can operate anywhere (land, air, sea) makes them top notch.

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".

looking at history, the greatest opponent of US military success has been the US people.

But the British army are far more experianced (Faulklands, NI, Sierra Leione AND Afghanistan and Iraq etc).

And you're forgetting about the US involvement in Columbia, Panama, Lebanon, and Somalia (amond others). Which is beside the fact that only a small amount of Iraq and Afghanistan is occupied by the British Army. Most of it is by the Americans. More of the American armed forces have more expirience than their British comrades.

As for the comment about the UK's training, that would be a moot point. Western militaries do so much cross-training together that saying that one is better than the other would be rediculous.

when you vector all variables into the equation the US wins hands down purely because of its ability (except as mentioned before by people in certain theatres)

The Uk really is not that far up on the list due to a MASSIVE lack of equipment for its standing army (let alone reservists), its navy is small and becoming dated (for shame for shame), its airforce is also becoming dated.. we should scrap the euro fighter and buy american imho. There are always equipment failures (look at iraq and afghanistan. The primary british weapon for its infantry was constantly jamming in the most unfortuante of times.)


The 2 reasons i would say America is losing power (in the sense of discipline) FRIENDLY FIRE and CIVILIAN CASUALTIES

subnote: Although weapons were found, the americans and the brits DID NOT ALLOW THE UN TO FINISH ITS JOB that is what made the war illegal. The only reason i support troops being there now is because you MUST finish what you start.

In regards to your statement that America is losing power because of friendly fire and civilian casualties; since we are the dominant, most visible force in anything that our soldiers do is highly publicized. Now, I am not excusing our GIs for their mistakes, but friendly fire and civilian casualties are an inevitable part of war, especially urban warfare. It relates to what Clausewitz calls 'the fog and friction of warfare.' Now matter how superior your intelligence, communications, and infrastructure is you will always encounter resistance in enacting military maneuvers by the nature of your own (human) forces. Perfect battlefield vision and communication is impossible because humans will still make mistakes. This is why in the modern era of Satellites, NVGs, radios, etc. we still have friendly fire and civilian casualties. When it does occur, its tragic and undesireable but that is the nature of warfare. War is hell. Bad things happen in war. No one entity or army could perfectly execute a war. So, we may lose prestige amongst our allies, but our forces are, nonetheless, just as capable and disciplined as when they began the war.

In regards to the legality of the Iraq war; I do not believe that the US invasion was either legal or illegal. The UN has proved itself to be quite useless concerning various current affairs. It is not bestowed with any true judicial, executive, or legislative power as nations are not required by any 'law' to abide by its wishes. Until it can truly enforce its will without military force then it is merely a moderately successful peace-endorsing, poverty-attacking NGO.

Now, I never said the Iraq was or was not justified, just that you cannot truly argue the 'legality' of things on an international scale. Yes, there is an 'international law,' but who enforces it? If someone could riddle me that they'd win a cookie.

USA and NATO forces seem to enforce it when it is in their best intrest...;)

Therein lies the problem with the United Nations. They tend to throw mean words around, but their only real military power comes from us (US, haha! Play on words) and Europe. If either of the two parties isn't willing to partake, nothing will come of it. Not as a UN action, anyway.

Personally, I don't see why we as Americans continue to assist the UN with the kind of funding we do. The United Nations was a noble concept, and succeded in many areas where the prior League of Nations failed, but in recent decades it has fallen short of its original intentions. Even though nobody is perfect, the Iraqi Oil-For-Food fiasco, the wanton raping associated with the attempts at peacekeeping in sub-Saharan Africa, and their impeccably terrible job of keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of what we could call "less than stable" nations, and we've got a pretty poor track record as of late.

Recently, the United Nations has almost exclusively hammered on us as being one of the leading causes of the world's problems. I don't support this point of view, and while I feel the UN is entitled to its own opinion, I fail to see why we owe them a chunk of US territory and yearly funding.

I think that the USA is today's superpower, but I think that - when given time - China will surpass them.

And Germany's not even on the list...:p
Germany was demilitarized remember?

Why is it no-one voted for South Korea?

Germany was demilitarized remember?
And then it was remilitarised, remember?

Why is it no-one voted for South Korea?
I fixed that little inequity. ;)

The US. Now that the Soviet Union has vanished, the US has unquestioned military superiority.