NationStates Jolt Archive

In your opinion (I say this because most people have no idea what they are talking about) what country has the most powerfull militarily on Earth?

zzzzzz don't mean to be rude but this is a fairly pointless poll

I included France, India and Pakistan due to the fact that they have the Bomb.

zzzzzz don't mean to be rude but this is a fairly pointless poll

Hence the term novlety post.

Do you mean if there was some sort of round robin who would win. Or in a General FFA RL situation?

Probably US for the first. Switzerland for the FFA. Why, you ask? Because they're so damn cool (Switzerland not US (well comparativly)) and they have milita (again Switzerland). Too bad its not based on any factual evidance, you people seem to find that important for some reason ... :(


BUTTONS!!!

so why Germany?

They don't even want to be a major military power, last time I checked at least.

They have a substancial tank force. Not to mention thier pilots are trained by the U.S.

Thats easy. The Vatican. All members of the Swiss guard are elite troops.

Thats easy. The Vatican. All members of the Swiss guard are elite troops.

I think not.

I think not.
Don't let their silly outfits fool you.

In a Nuclear War no one wins.

I think Fasict Emirates was refering to the ability to wage war against another superpower, not percentages of elite troops. Yes the vatican has a private security force but not enough to hold of an invasion, but then again who wants the vatican?

Thats easy. The Vatican. All members of the Swiss guard are elite troops.

If only the entire population of Switzerland were made up of fully qualified Swiss guards.

China.

They have nuclear weapons. They also have the biggest military in number.

If only the entire population of Switzerland were fully qualified Swiss guards.

Fascist Emirates was right....

China.

They have nuclear weapons. They also have the biggest military in number.

In terms of sheer number of grunts Russia wins.

Fascist Emirates was right....

No, he was wrong ... he didn't include Swizterland in the poll.

Ah the Red Navy. (The Russian version of the Marines)
They use them to board ships.

Я увидел, что вы написали diclonius русского вчера

No, he was wrong ... he didn't include Swizterland in the poll.

Not enough room, only Ten options. Also the Swiss are neutral, but that doesn't mean they can't fight.

If we are talking about one man from each nation, it's pretty obvious - SAS or SBS from the UK.

If we are talking about everyone throwing everything at each other, it'll be the US.

if we are talking about sheer numbers, it'll be china.

America wins in my opinion (although I don't think they should), in that it has enough troops to be able to carry out the typical approach of throw enough tanks/money/politicians at it and hope it dies/shuts up/goes away.

(PS.

[QUOTE=Я увидел, что вы написали diclonius русского вчера[/QUOTE]

Why the perfective "to see"? it shifts the meaning from what you want to say. And you need "language" after "Russian".)

Man for man? Hmmmm....... SEALs and the SAS are pretty much tied....
how about the sayeret makal?

America wins in my opinion (although I don't think they should), in that it has enough troops to be able to carry out the typical approach of throw enough tanks/money/politicians at it and hope it dies/shuts up/goes away.

(PS.



Why the perfective "to see"? it shifts the meaning from what you want to say. And you need "language" after "Russian".)

Not fluent.

Not fluent.

Sorry. That wasn't the main point of the post, but after years of learning all this grammar by heart, it sends me into cold sweats and makes me want to lie down if I see it.

Man for man? Hmmmm....... SEALs and the SAS are pretty much tied....
how about the sayeret makal?Which is why I'd expect it to be SBS from the UK - much much deadlier (the SAS do the public stuff, the SBS do the stuff they don't want us to know about). Very small number of them though.

Hence the term novlety post.


Sorry, how does that make sense? As if all polls on this forum aren't novelty polls?

If both numbers, quality, information technology and arms technology are taken into account I would say the US are in the lead. The Chinese are in pursuit though, mainly in information tech. since they've got the greatest potential for hackers and crackers.

I have no doubt they will catch up on technology too in the coming decades and will replace US as the dominant military, economic AND thus political power in the world.

When nukes are taken into consideration there is no clear victor. Obviously nukes will destroy alot and not leave much to conquer. So it's actually the shittiest weapon man has invented so far.

No, he was wrong ... he didn't include Swizterland in the poll.
Theres an 'other' option in the poll for things like that.

Which is why I'd expect it to be SBS from the UK - much much deadlier (the SAS do the public stuff, the SBS do the stuff they don't want us to know about). Very small number of them though.

The Israeli sayeret makal and the german KSK

Sorry, how does that make sense? As if all polls on this forum aren't novelty polls?It might actually be the first sarcastic post on NationStates though...

Sorry, how does that make sense? As if all polls on this forum aren't novelty polls?

Some people have a higher opinion of forums.

It might actually be the first sarcastic post on NationStates though...

Not sarcasm, stating a simple fact.

Some people have a higher opinion of forums.

Some people don't understand the definition of the world 'novelty'.

And by the way, yes I can read, but you don't appear to be able to spell.

Some people don't understand the definition of the world 'novelty'.

And by the way, yes I can read, but you don't appear to be able to spell.

How condescending. This is degrading into childish banter, lets get back to the topic at hand.

Not sarcasm, stating a simple fact.Then you got your facts wrong. This certainly isn't the first poll or thread of its kind on NationStates.

*sighs*

How condescending. This is degrading into childish banter, lets get back to the topic at hand.


How hypocritical. You were the one who asked me if I could read.

Let's not get back to the topic at hand because it's unoriginal and has a fairly obvious conclusion.

How hypocritical. You were the one who asked me if I could read.

Let's not get back to the topic at hand because it's unoriginal and has a fairly obvious conclusion.

Nice superiority complex. I admit to starting the confrontation (and dragging it out, hence the former and later statements) but I have the cognative maturity to end it.

Has Canada ever lost a war?

Anyway, though, my vote goes with Singapore.

Has Canada ever lost a war?

Anyway, though, my vote goes with Singapore.

Not to my understanding.

Canada was on the Allied side in World War Two, (And participated in the D-Day invasion) but we all know what happend there.

Not to my understanding.

Well, go to Singapore sometime. It's a peaceful, safe place with one of the best standings in human rights. If, as many do, we go on the "a strong military is necessary for maintaining freedom" theory, then Singapore must have the greatest military in the known Universe.

Is this some kind of joke? The US obvously has the most powerful military.

Well, go to Singapore sometime. It's a peaceful, safe place with one of the best standings in human rights. If, as many do, we go on the "a strong military is necessary for maintaining freedom" theory, then Singapore must have the greatest military in the known Universe.

Or lacks anything of value. (no offence intended, but you never know)

Or lacks anything of value. (no offence intended, but you never know)

Lol ... well ... I suppose that's another possibility.

Is this some kind of joke? The US obvously has the most powerful military.

Huh? How so? After 3 years, the US hasn't even been able to quash a rag-tag bunch of rebels armed with do-rags and AK-47s.

The Israeli sayeret makal and the german KSKThey base themselves on the SAS - they don't improve on them.

Is this some kind of joke? The US obvously has the most powerful military.

I started this post with the intent of alluding to a political discussion. Or just to drive the point home.

They base themselves on the SAS - they don't improve on them.
Don't know about the Israeli one, but the KSK is based on the GSG-9, not the SAS.

Huh? How so? After 3 years, the US hasn't even been able to quash a rag-tag bunch of rebels armed with do-rags and AK-47s.

*cough* chechnya *cough*

*cough* chechnya *cough*

*cough* Iraq *cough*

The Russians had the same problem in chechnya. And don't forget the Zulu.

I have to go in under ten minutes.

Huh? How so? After 3 years, the US hasn't even been able to quash a rag-tag bunch of rebels armed with do-rags and AK-47s.

That's mainly their own fault. Instead of patrolling the roads 24/7, they patrol them 12/7, allowing so-called 'terrorists' to place roadside bombs. Same goes for the cities.

And I wouldm't underestimate them 'rebels'. I've seen pictures of them running around with AK-74's with sniper scopes and RPG's. A little rezpekt will do.

Those probably were SVDs. Maybe its a man power issue?

Don't know about the Israeli one, but the KSK is based on the GSG-9, not the SAS.

You are quite right, but the GSG9 were advised by the SAS in their raid on the Lufthansa aircraft that was hijacked by Baader-Meinoff/PFLP terrorists. GSG9 are good counter-terrorists, but not so good soldiers. Moreover, they are also modelled on the SAS.

I was tempted to put U.S., like everyone else, and instead put Israel.

They might not have the global reach of the U.S., but they've made it clear that they are no nation to be fucked around with.

The United States hands down would win any war with any other single (depending on who they are, maybe more) nation on the planet. The US's biggest advantage is its technology and force projection capabilities.

I was tempted to put U.S., like everyone else, and instead put Israel.

They might not have the global reach of the U.S., but they've made it clear that they are no nation to be fucked around with.
Perhaps but in the unlikely chance that the US were to go to war with Israel, who do you think would win? ;)

Huh? How so? After 3 years, the US hasn't even been able to quash a rag-tag bunch of rebels armed with do-rags and AK-47s.

Because Rumsfeld hamstrung the military by only allowing it about a third the number of troops Shinseki thought necessary to secure the country? Because we lost the war for hearts and minds when we started torturing innocent civilians at Abu Ghraib?

Moreover, if you want to talk about Iraq, then you must also admit that the initial invasion went spectacularly well: we were covering and securing roughly 50 miles per day even in the face of Fedayeen and Republican Guard resistance, which is faster than Patton moved through France.

The simple answer is the US: short of invading and securing Russia or China, there is virtually nothing the full weight of the US armed forces couldn't accomplish. As is, one carrier task force parked off Taiwan would be able to obliterate Chinese non-nuclear warmaking capability in a day or two, and we have about six or seven carrier task forces operating around the globe. We control the seas, we control the skies, and we almost outspend the rest of the industrialized world combined in defense matters. There is simply no question that the US has the most powerful military on Earth.

not sure it all depends on who will put the bayonet and boot in when it comes to it despite all the techonolgy of today, the battle will still be though with the fist, boot and bayonet when it gets down to it

Huh? How so? After 3 years, the US hasn't even been able to quash a rag-tag bunch of rebels armed with do-rags and AK-47s.
I think it is arrogant to state that since the US has had trouble getting rid of the insurgents in Iraq the United States military are somehow not the most powerful military in the world. It is important to note that the United States has exercised military restraint to avoid killing civilians and its upper-level officials have made several poor decisions in handling the war as well. Those are the primary reasons why the Iraq war has proven so costly, but I doubt any other nation would of been able to destroy the terrorists without bombing the country to smithereens something the US could of done in the very begining if they really wanted to.

Great Britain's military is the best for it's size. The generals are extremley experienced and the troops are the best in any conflict, therefore I cannot say that there is a better military when it's on an equal playing field and everyone has the same amount of men. :D

Moreover, if you want to talk about Iraq, then you must also admit that the initial invasion went spectacularly well: we were covering and securing roughly 50 miles per day even in the face of Fedayeen and Republican Guard resistance, which is faster than Patton moved through France.

The simple answer is the US: short of invading and securing Russia or China, there is virtually nothing the full weight of the US armed forces couldn't accomplish. As is, one carrier task force parked off Taiwan would be able to obliterate Chinese non-nuclear warmaking capability in a day or two, and we have about six or seven carrier task forces operating around the globe. We control the seas, we control the skies, and we almost outspend the rest of the industrialized world combined in defense matters. There is simply no question that the US has the most powerful military on Earth.

Well, I must admit that the US army can easily win of a foe that uses the same warfare strategems and techniques.

They seem to have a severe problem with guerilla tactics however. We've seen it in Vietnam and we're seeing it again now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Exept for the special forces, the US army has some strange ideas on how to counter guerilla warfare.

The US by a landslide. We've got the edge in quality, technology, and competence as well as the economy necessary to support it in the field; a lot of people forget that a strong economy is as important as the troops themselves when it comes to military competence...look at the USSR. It was most powerful when its economy did well in the 50's-70's and was (really) at its weakest when it began to deteriorate in the 80's.

Don't forget the people themselves; the US may seem politically divided now, but in the face of a threat like the Nazi regime, I can say beyond a doubt that this country's people are capable of amazing displays of unity and dedication to whatever cause we put our collective energy towards.

Huh? How so? After 3 years, the US hasn't even been able to quash a rag-tag bunch of rebels armed with do-rags and AK-47s.

Well, I'll start off by saying that you are a dumbass.

The United States military in Iraq is outnumbered 15 to one in the average battle. The insurgents are using tactics that require selfless sacrifice and suicide most of the time, which is something American troops have not dealt with before. Jihadi influence is very strong, so new people are always ready to join the fight. AK-47's are not bad weapons, actually, they are very good weapons, especially effective against american convoys and trucks when the gun is used with an armour piercing round. America cannot fight against a ghost, the insurgents can be anywhere in the city and troops cannot cherrypick them out because they blend in very well. American troops cannot just go around searching for them because they are everywhere, and you can never tell who is going to attack you with a concealed weapon in their shirt and who's going to buy fruit. The rebels are trained in desert and city combat and are very experienced, and the marines that are there are almost fresh recruits. Lastly, it's not a doo-rag, it's a shaal.

They seem to have a severe problem with guerilla tactics however. We've seen it in Vietnam and we're seeing it again now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Exept for the special forces, the US army has some strange ideas on how to counter guerilla warfare.

Some of it is politics and bureaucracy at home, and some of it is the nature of guerilla warfare itself...we could easily crush the insurgency, but the downside is that there would probably be no one left alive in most major inhabitated areas.

Some of it is politics and bureaucracy at home, and some of it is the nature of guerilla warfare itself...we could easily crush the insurgency, but the downside is that there would probably be no one left alive in most major inhabitated areas.

That is the hole point of guerilla warfare. Being able to strike at an opponent, while they are not - or hardly - able to strike back, mainly since they cannot accurately locate you.

If both numbers, quality, information technology and arms technology are taken into account I would say the US are in the lead. The Chinese are in pursuit though, mainly in information tech. since they've got the greatest potential for hackers and crackers.

I have no doubt they will catch up on technology too in the coming decades and will replace US as the dominant military, economic AND thus political power in the world.

When nukes are taken into consideration there is no clear victor. Obviously nukes will destroy alot and not leave much to conquer. So it's actually the shittiest weapon man has invented so far.

Amen

But at the moment, calling the US the most militarily powerful nation in the world is a wild understatement. Try looking at a breakdown of equipment and training. Don't forget to take the age of the equipment into consideration. For example China has no chance of taking taiwan because all of their landing craft are world war two era, while Taiwan has a smaller fleet of more modern ships that outclass the dated chinese fleet. (And there's the little issue that the US would go bonkers on them if they even looked at taiwan the wrong way.)

If we are talking about one man from each nation, it's pretty obvious - SAS or SBS from the UK.

If we are talking about everyone throwing everything at each other, it'll be the US.

if we are talking about sheer numbers, it'll be china.

not so obvious... many countries have highly effective special operators.

in the US the top groups (to my knowledge) are Delta, DEVGRU (special SEAL unit), and US Army special ops (green berets).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEVGRU

not so obvious... many countries have highly effective special operators.

in the US the top groups (to my knowledge) are Delta, DEVGRU (special SEAL unit), and US Army special ops (green berets).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEVGRU

Well, in special operations Us and UK are very close, but SAS and SBS are extremley effective and have a higher life expectancy for their operatives than any of the Delta Force, Green Baret's, etc. But, in a full battlefield scenario in which you can come with reinforcements, the UK would be wiped out, their forces are not made for that. Large scale land operations is the specialty of France and THe UNited States.

Manpower: India's is officially larger I believe, but with the paramilitary forces, China is top. Or was it the other way around?

Navy: Most likely the States. We haven't seen carriers perform in actual stress situations for some time though, and there have been suggestions that modern anti-ship missiles or submarines can take out a task force. And without them, the US Navy isn't quite as tough anymore.
The Soviets banked on that with the Sovremmeny, and to be honest, I don't think they were/are stupid.

Air Force: Again, the US Air Force has a big arsenal of consistently sophisticated jets. The F-22 doesn't play that big a role, but still, a set of F-15s or F-16s is a good thing to have. The Eurofighter is neat, but not in large-scale service yet, the Chinese have their Lavi copy. There'll be some interesting development through the years.
But in terms of technology, particularly in air-to-air missiles the Americans don't seem to be at the top at the moment. The Russians have AMRAAMskis (AA-12 Adder), Germany just introduced the IRIS-T dogfight missile which pwns and Europe is close to finishing the Meteor.

Army: Although the Americans have a large and very deployable force, I get the feeling that in some areas (particularly tank design) Europe is a little bit better. New versions of the Leclerc and Leopard II are better than the new Abrams versions, and they are supported by more modern IFVs like the German Puma. And the Apache has in the past shown some weaknesses, which were addressed in the development of the Tiger. Future Soldier Systems are being developed by all Western nations, so I don't think any side has a great advantage there.

Training: Difficult to tell, seeing as to how I never went through it. Israeli soldiers not only get good training, but they can also be expected to be deployed very soon and thus get experience in stressful situations. But then, I would expect the training in nations like North Korea to also be very tough and challenging.

Special Forces: Hmmm...I don't think there is great difference between Western countries. Whether it be KSK or SAS, Kampfschwimmer or SEALS, ultimately they all do the same things and often train together. The one thing that is a little bit out of line is the North Korean Special Forces, which would have to be pretty damn psycho. They're also the largest in the world.

Nuclear: The Russians get this one before the Americans. They have declared this their major area of spending, and it shows in the development of new, very dangerous Topol-M variants. The Minuteman's got nothing on that.

Most promising future: China is free to spend a lot of money, while the US struggles with the deficit. They can basically pick who they work with (as seen in the J-10 project), and they are free to take all the modern developments in terms of military tactics and technology into account. They already are rumoured to be working on an F-22 equivalent, and they are training more engineers now than the States. Plus, their population stands behind the PLA 100%, every year they have to reject hundreds of thousands of wannabe recruits.

The insurgents are using tactics that require selfless sacrifice and suicide most of the time, which is something American troops have not dealt with before. Nooo. Course not. The Vietnamese never used selfless sacrifice or suicide in their tactics. Neither did the Japanese kamikazes...:rolleyes:

You are quite right, but the GSG9 were advised by the SAS in their raid on the Lufthansa aircraft that was hijacked by Baader-Meinoff/PFLP terrorists. GSG9 are good counter-terrorists, but not so good soldiers. Moreover, they are also modelled on the SAS."Advised by" is a bit different from "modelled on". The GSG-9 is a police force, which would also explain why they aren't good soldiers: they aren't soldiers. A commando unit isn't the best basis for a police force...

In a Nuclear War no one wins.

The cockroaches win. ;)

The cockroaches win. ;)

Cockroaches only have a higher tolerance for radiation, a thermonuclear blast incinerates most everything. (And the radiation from most modern warheads disapates in around 5 milliseconds)

Whatever.

And I thought you could sink no lower. what the hell is this about bugs?

And I thought you could sink no lower. what the hell is this about bugs?

Don't Ask.

agreed probaly stupid anyways. what class you in right now? oh and GSG-9 are scary.

Habe ich Deutsch. Frau Z ist nicht so gut.

Air Force: Again, the US Air Force has a big arsenal of consistently sophisticated jets. The F-22 doesn't play that big a role, but still, a set of F-15s or F-16s is a good thing to have. The Eurofighter is neat, but not in large-scale service yet, the Chinese have their Lavi copy. There'll be some interesting development through the years.
But in terms of technology, particularly in air-to-air missiles the Americans don't seem to be at the top at the moment. The Russians have AMRAAMskis (AA-12 Adder), Germany just introduced the IRIS-T dogfight missile which pwns and Europe is close to finishing the Meteor.


You're overlooking the F-117, the B-1, the B-2 and the B-52. All Bombers
and three of them are stealth. Also the A-10 which is globally unique in its ground support role.


Army: Although the Americans have a large and very deployable force, I get the feeling that in some areas (particularly tank design) Europe is a little bit better. New versions of the Leclerc and Leopard II are better than the new Abrams versions, and they are supported by more modern IFVs like the German Puma. And the Apache has in the past shown some weaknesses, which were addressed in the development of the Tiger. Future Soldier Systems are being developed by all Western nations, so I don't think any side has a great advantage there.


The only tank that is fully comprable to the newest Abrams is the Israeli Merkava (Throne of God). The Leo II is based on the M1A1 and therefore inferior to the M1A2 SEP. The Leo II could easily take the Leclerc.

How are the Grenzschutzgruppe 9 scary? The KSK gives me the willies, and the SEALs would agree with me.

Ach so. Ich habe fergesen. Sie ist ein grosses er..... Ich habe fergessen wie sagt man Biatch auf deutsch?

never eat dinner with two marine officers when your dating their daughter its dangerous.

You're overlooking the F-117, the B-1, the B-2 and the B-52. All Bombers
and three of them are stealth. Also the A-10 which is globally unique in its ground support role.



The only tank that is fully comprable to the newest Abrams is the Israeli Merkava (Throne of God). The Leo II is based on the M1A1 and therefore inferior to the M1A2 SEP. The Leo II could easily take the Leclerc.

The T-90, the Challenger Two, The Black Eagle.

Ach so. Ich habe fergesen. Sie ist ein grosses er..... Ich habe fergessen wie sagt man Biatch auf deutsch?

never eat dinner with two marine officers when your dating their daughter its dangerous.

When did you do the latter?

fergesen? Wirklich?

Have you ever met some one from gsg-9? I have and their scary. he threw a drunk out a 3rd story window because he wanted to see if he could "fly." of course this happened after a bar fight so the drunk had it coming

Have you ever met some one from gsg-9? I have and their scary. he threw a drunk out a 3rd story window because he wanted to see if he could "fly." of course this happened after a bar fight so the drunk had it coming

Marines do that as well, The SEALs tell them how.

The T-90, the Challenger Two, The Black Eagle.

The SEP was designed a) well after the Challenger 2 went into production and b) w/ the T-90 in mind

The Black Eagle is a very cool airplane, but would probably suffer 2-1 losses against the Falcon because of the F-16's incredible maneuverability at speed.

When did you do the latter?

fergesen? Wirklich?

Schließen Sie auf

Schließen Sie auf

Very funny.

The SEP was designed a) well after the Challenger 2 went into production and b) w/ the T-90 in mind

The Black Eagle is a very cool airplane, but would probably suffer 2-1 losses against the Falcon because of the F-16's incredible maneuverability at speed.


A-10 dose a better job of ground clearing then the 16. the F-16 also has some er... 'minor' issues that keep it from being top notch

Very funny.

What?

A-10 dose a better job of ground clearing then the 16. the F-16 also has some er... 'minor' issues that keep it from being top notch

Such as being the sux0rs? <- How mature of me.

A-10 dose a better job of ground clearing then the 16.

That's why 16's and 10's fly together. The Falcons cover the Hogs while they get to work.

the F-16 also has some er... 'minor' issues that keep it from being top notch

Explain.

What?

Sorry thought that meant something akin to shut up (halt die Schnauze?)

That's why 16's and 10's fly together. The Falcons cover the Hogs while they get to work.



Explain.

Here's an explanation
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/f16/f16crash3.jpg
Again, me being juvenile.

Explain.[/QUOTE]

issues with acceleration, duribility, payload(though admitadly this is not such a problem cause the payloas is still rather good.) instrument problems(now fixed). So I geuse its only issues with the acceleration and duribility.

Sorry thought that meant something akin to shut up (halt die Schnauze?)

it means shut up

has to take a quiz, (five to ten minutes)

Mein gewer ist kapput! (M16)

as much as I'm enjoying this conversation I regretabily have a physics class that I must attend at the local community college so Ciao all.

Explain.

issues with acceleration, duribility, payload(though admitadly this is not such a problem cause the payloas is still rather good.) instrument problems(now fixed). So I geuse its only issues with the acceleration and duribility.[/QUOTE]

It weighs far less than any other fighter in the world, and most of that weight is engine. What makes you think it has an accel problem.

The Falcon is one of the easiest planes to maintain, and most of the original production order is still flying.

Here's an explanation
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/f16/f16crash3.jpg
Again, me being juvenile.

planes crash. no one said the Falcon was immune

I gotta go ttfn

Right now the US have the tech edge though I think Eouropean nations win on a man-for-man basis.

The russkies are rebuilding their tech levels (the new Sukhoi-50 is basically an F-22 and I think the Black Eagle might be worthwhile) but man-for man they aren't traditionally an impressive force.

China is pretty much Russia with a better focus but further back technologically.

The Falcon is one of the easiest planes to maintain, and most of the original production order is still flying.

As supported by the fact that the Dutch airforces bought a certain number of the F-16, based on the assumption that they would lose about 2 each year, so they could buy a whole new set of planes around 2005-2010. Instead they lost 1 plane every 2 years. Now we've got a surplus of F-16's.

Hurray for F-16 durability.

You're overlooking the F-117, the B-1, the B-2 and the B-52. All Bombers and three of them are stealth. Also the A-10 which is globally unique in its ground support role.
True. In Bombing, the US takes it, although both the B-1 and the F-117 can probably be dealt with with modern Russian technology (particularly because the Russians have the Blackjack and that wrecked Nighthawk from Serbia to study).
I like the A-10. But I heard they want them replaced. It's not unique though. Everyone and his dog has the Frogfoot these days.

The only tank that is fully comprable to the newest Abrams is the Israeli Merkava (Throne of God). The Leo II is based on the M1A1 and therefore inferior to the M1A2 SEP. The Leo II could easily take the Leclerc.
I always felt the Merkava was excellent for what it is designed these days, and that's dealing with the confines of the refugee camps and attacks by militants from all sides. But if I had to go in a major tank battle to decide WWIII, I'd rather take the Leo.
Which is of course not based on the Abrams, but a completely new design. The SEP is pretty much the same as the A6 EX version, and the Leclerc has good armour and a new autoloader, as well as some very trick networking electronics. Usually, in modern tank warfare, there is little between the models anyway but training and a good bit of luck. And when a helicopter comes around, you're screwed.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
The Leo II is the result of a cooperative design by the US and Germany, out of which the US quit and chose a completely different one (ie the Abrams). The Germans continued their line of thinking and started the first Leo II, which has almost nothing in common with the newest variants. They've come a long way.
The Challenger is pretty good too, by the way. Excellent armour rating.

There is simply no question that the US has the most powerful military on Earth.
True, but they are not exactly the brightest...lol

I think that the biggest problem of the superpowers isn’t their strength, it’s their focus and application of that strength. China runs on horde power, although they are buying tech like a drunken sailor. China’s big problem is that unless they also invest in ships they will never be able to do much more than shout at Taiwan. Taiwan has a strong airforce and navy that can prevent the Chinese from ever launching their hordes. I mean we’re talking about a nation that has a rapid reaction force of over 2.5 million soldiers ready to deploy at any time. Unfortunately, they lack the logistics to get them there. I think that they also have around 30 million cavalry still on the books. Yes cavalry on horseback.

The Americans have huge resources, both technological and material. Unfortunately their standoff policy to sit back and cream everything from long range is going to result in a weaker ability of their combat troops to be combat troops. Yes they will always be able to polish off third world armies this way but against another superpower they’ll get their clocks cleaned. The biggest weakness of the American military has become its unwillingness to get hurt fighting a war. Everyone is afraid of casualties in the media and having a rerun of Vietnam. They talk guts, but end up being gadgets over guts.

They spend billions on the too many new next generation aircraft to count and buddy on the ground in Iraq has to have his parents send them civilian night vision and Motorola’s for comms, because his unit is sorely under equipped. The US generals are just a bunch of corporate suits and the officer culture is being shaped in corporate instead of military strategies. Somewhere along the line, between the corruption of the military corporations and the government they have lost their way. The US should be a lot more focused and well supported than they currently are. They also should not be using flawed kit just so a politically connected corporation can count the billions coming into their bank. The F-22 debacle is just one of many funding disasters that have drained the coffers from the ability to properly equip the US military.

The Russians are a basket case but in many ways are really doing more with less. Their ground troops have terrible morale, brutal gulag culture, and no support. They treat their troops like crap. The regular force units feel abandoned and pissy about losing the Cold War. The special forces feel overly relied upon by regular unit commanders who don’t want their troops getting killed. They are creating better next generation weaponry than anyone else out there, the US included. For all the Cold War propaganda leaked by the CIA about the Soviets stealing our military designs, it just isn’t so. Russia is now leading the US on many fronts of weapon development: air superiority jets, supercavitating torpedoes, mobile missile batteries, main battle tanks, and much more. The problem is that the Russians don’t have the capital to produce all their new innovations in the numbers needed to replace aging combat platforms. The danger is that they are going into partnerships with other nations (like India and China) to develop them.

The Bruce