NationStates Jolt Archive

Last night I dreamed that WWIII happened, so I thought, "Hey, why not post about this on boolprop!" Well anyway, I'm curious as to who has the world's all around strongest military? I'm curious, not looking to cause trouble. Please don't get offended if you're country isn't on here. This is based off of web sources, news, opinions, etc. Here's what I think of this now:

World's top 5 strongest general military powers

1.USA. With the funds they have, modern weapons, well trained soldiers, a decent sized army, and largest nuclear arsenal (It's not Russia anymore), they are the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to military muscle.

2.China. With their ambitions and increasingly strengthening economy, gigantic manpower, it's growing strong, yet many of it's technologies are outdated, but not strong enough to approach US strength... yet... :(

3. UK. Whereas they don't have the manpower of China or the US, they're army is incredibly well trained, and their technology is mostly the same as the US. If they were given the land/ population, they'd be as strong (if not more) as another US.

4. Russia. It used to challenge the US for its number 1 title during the cold war, but after the economic setback of switching over to capitalism, they just were never the same.

5. Israel. They're small, but the kick @$$ with they're army, which is the world's strongest as they require all citizens to spend at least two years in it.

Well, is this right? Tell me what you think if you don't agree, I'm not looking for a fight just the truth.

Last night I dreamed that WWIII happened, so I thought, "Hey, why not post about this on boolprop!" Well anyway, I'm curious as to who has the world's all around strongest military? I'm curious, not looking to cause trouble. Please don't get offended if you're country isn't on here. This is based off of web sources, news, opinions, etc. Here's what I think of this now:

World's top 5 strongest general military powers

1.USA. With the funds they have, modern weapons, well trained soldiers, a decent sized army, and largest nuclear arsenal (It's not Russia anymore), they are the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to military muscle.

2.China. With their ambitions and increasingly strengthening economy, gigantic manpower, it's growing strong, yet many of it's technologies are outdated, but not strong enough to approach US strength... yet... :(

3. UK. Whereas they don't have the manpower of China or the US, they're army is incredibly well trained, and their technology is mostly the same as the US. If they were given the land/ population, they'd be as strong (if not more) as another US.

4. Russia. It used to challenge the US for its number 1 title during the cold war, but after the economic setback of switching over to capitalism, they just were never the same.

5. Israel. They're small, but the kick @$$ with they're army, which is the world's strongest as they require all citizens to spend at least two years in it.

Well, is this right? Tell me what you think if you don't agree, I'm not looking for a fight just the truth.

for very good military comparisons visit www.strategypage.com

America. Unquestionably. It would take all four of the other nations you mentioned to pose a serious match to the USA.

Imperial Army of Canada

I'm definately thinking Andorra.

The Swiss!

America. Unquestionably. It would take all four of the other nations you mentioned to pose a serious match to the USA.

...say what? That's ridiculous. The American military is not THAT powerful, no matter what people say. It has two primary limitations that hinder it enormously:

1. Manpower is susceptible to severe shortages due to an all-volunteer military. Furthermore, the U.S.A. only has ~300,000,000 citizens, as opposed to China's well > ~1,000,000,000.

2. Overreliance on complicated technology. If technology ever does anything all the time, it's crap out on you at the worst possible time.

I'd say China is easily a match for the United States, and if you pit Russia with them, the U.S. is GONE, let alone the U.K. or Israel.

I'd say China is easily a match for the United States, and if you pit Russia with them, the U.S. is GONE, let alone the U.K. or Israel.

Numbers mean nothing if you can't get them where they need to be, and technology tends to dominate over numbers, especially when those numbers aren't too overwhelming. China's naval and air forces are no match for the US, and their quality is also subpar compared to the US.

The Chinese economy simply isn't up to the task of arming, training and equipping a significant part of its population; they lack the infrastructure or sheer economic size to really put that many troops in to action, and their inefficient agricultural system would be totally incapacitated by shortages of manpower.

China has the most men.

Russia has the most weapons to help their soldiers.

America has the strongest weapons, a strong all-around military, and an uber-strong navy.

I would say that those 3 countries are even in military might. Then comes the UK, and other countries.

I mean common, حزبلله is owning Isreal in their little war. How many prisoners have they taken compared to Isreal?

China has the most men.

Russia has the most weapons to help their soldiers.

America has the strongest weapons, a strong all-around military, and an uber-strong navy.

I would say that those 3 countries are even in military might. Then comes the UK, and other countries.

Not at all. China and Russia, perhaps, but neither of them are strong enough on their own. The only part of the Russian military that is of US quality is their Strategic Rocket Forces; the rest are badly underinvested (with the exception of their submarine fleet) and stocked mostly with Cold War leftovers rather than new equipment.

Also, the structure of their military produces lower quality soldiers that simply can't fight very well.

the Canadians

Luxembourg with their army of bucked-tooth girls.

Luxembourg with their army of bucked-tooth girls.

And their strange Germanic dialect...

Man for man I'd take the British military over anyone in the world. The way things are with manning levels and kit then the US is by far the strongest military in the world.

Too many people are over-confident of the American military. It really isn't that great. If it is so great, why are we still in Iraq?

China would seriously kick ass. I don't care if they're stuck with AKs. They're numbers are simply too massive. Oh, by the way guys, they do have a navy. Oh, and they do have aircraft.

However, I'm going to have to go for Canada.

This picture will explain why:

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9186/1154409567926vi4.jpg

Not at all. China and Russia, perhaps, but neither of them are strong enough on their own. The only part of the Russian military that is of US quality is their Strategic Rocket Forces; the rest are badly underinvested (with the exception of their submarine fleet) and stocked mostly with Cold War leftovers rather than new equipment.

Also, the structure of their military produces lower quality soldiers that simply can't fight very well.

Yes, that's true. They don't really focus on their military because they probably think: "If things get too sticky, we'll just bomb them with nukes".

So, I would say that the U.S.A. has the strongest military. The U.S.A. is arguably the only world superpower (arguably as in it may not be the only one).

China would seriously kick ass. I don't care if they're stuck with AKs. They're numbers are simply too massive. Oh, by the way guys, they do have a navy. Oh, and they do have aircraft.

They have a navy and aircraft, but they're nothing compared to the US forces...we'd cripple their air and naval forces pretty quickly.

Imperial Army of Canada

DAmn right!!!!111 :eek:

I mean common, حزبلله is owning Isreal in their little war. How many prisoners have they taken compared to Isreal?

...Mostly because if Israel just turned round and nuked the rest of the middle east, which they could do with ease, then sanctions would destroy their economy.

You cant say that even combined the middle east could stand up to israel in a serious war... and dont say the israel/lebanon war was 'serious'...

(as i understand it, israel has taken more prisoners anyway)

Yes, that's true. They don't really focus on their military because they probably think: "If things get too sticky, we'll just bomb them with nukes".

Exactly. A nuclear weapon talks just as loudly as 100,000 soldiers, so it saves a lot of equipment, supplies, and pay expenditures and gives you the equivalent of worldwide force projection with a push of a button.

That's one of the reasons why the Soviets were able to keep their military expenditures under control during the 1970's despite their stagnating economy; it kept them alive longer than if they had focused on other military fronts instead.

So, I would say that the U.S.A. has the strongest military. The U.S.A. is arguably the only world superpower (arguably as in it may not be the only one).

True. Although Russia's not far behind, since they've got a stronger economy and plenty of nuclear weapons (with more in the pipeline?).

...Mostly because if Israel just turned round and nuked the rest of the middle east, which they could do with ease, then sanctions would destroy their economy.

I was talking about ground troops instead of nukes.

You cant say that even combined the middle east could stand up to israel in a serious war... and dont say the israel/lebanon war was 'serious'...
No, that war wasn't serious. But I think that Isreal may win in a war with the Middle East (without the U.S helping Isreal), but they would have a ___ victory (forgot the word used when someone wins while taking massive damage).

(as i understand it, israel has taken more prisoners anyway)
But the fact that Hizbollah, a measly terrorist group, could challenge a sovereign nations' army is proof that either A) Isreal doesn't care or B) Isreal can't hold off Hizbollah using ground troops alone.

I'd go with B.

i would say china could really fuck up america. not that i would support china in a war against america. would be one of the few countries i wouldnt support.

No, that war wasn't serious. But I think that Isreal may win in a war with the Middle East (without the U.S helping Isreal), but they would have a ___ victory (forgot the word used when someone wins while taking massive damage).

I'd go with B.

Phyrric.

Last night I dreamed that WWIII happened, so I thought, "Hey, why not post about this on boolprop!" Well anyway, I'm curious as to who has the world's all around strongest military? I'm curious, not looking to cause trouble. Please don't get offended if you're country isn't on here. This is based off of web sources, news, opinions, etc. Here's what I think of this now:

World's top 5 strongest general military powers

1.USA. With the funds they have, modern weapons, well trained soldiers, a decent sized army, and largest nuclear arsenal (It's not Russia anymore), they are the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to military muscle.

2.China. With their ambitions and increasingly strengthening economy, gigantic manpower, it's growing strong, yet many of it's technologies are outdated, but not strong enough to approach US strength... yet... :(

3. UK. Whereas they don't have the manpower of China or the US, they're army is incredibly well trained, and their technology is mostly the same as the US. If they were given the land/ population, they'd be as strong (if not more) as another US.

4. Russia. It used to challenge the US for its number 1 title during the cold war, but after the economic setback of switching over to capitalism, they just were never the same.

5. Israel. They're small, but the kick @$$ with they're army, which is the world's strongest as they require all citizens to spend at least two years in it.

Well, is this right? Tell me what you think if you don't agree, I'm not looking for a fight just the truth.


americ will bitch slap anyone.

no comparison

2. Overreliance on complicated technology. If technology ever does anything all the time, it's crap out on you at the worst possible time.


Actually, this is quite interesting. I was watching a documentary on some new and improved system the Military uses. They staged a massive war game to test it out, with Israel as our enemy. The result surprised everyone, with a massive overrall victory for Israel, with huge losses to the Americans. I'm going to have to find that, actually. Unfortunatley, instead of seeing where the system failed, the people in charge redid the game, severely limited those who were the Israelis, to manufacture a win, which in turn they spun to say how great their new system was.

Quite interesting, really.

Too many people are over-confident of the American military. It really isn't that great. If it is so great, why are we still in Iraq?
China would seriously kick ass. I don't care if they're stuck with AKs. They're numbers are simply too massive. Oh, by the way guys, they do have a navy. Oh, and they do have aircraft.

However, I'm going to have to go for Canada.

This picture will explain why:

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9186/1154409567926vi4.jpg

The reason we're still 'stuck' in Iraq is that we're not fighting a war. Instead, we're 'bogged down' (I don't think we are, but it seems to be the popular opinion) winning the peace.

War is about killing your enemies, and breaking their material possesions. Not about keeping the peace or winning hearts & minds, or building a Nation State.

And as far as China goes, if we invaded their turf, it would be Iraq x 10. However, were that to occur, I don't see it going down like that. We would napalm to such an extent that they wish they were Vietnamese.

China's navy is growing stronger, in large part to the fact that they keep pilfering US technology (especially computer tech that is essential to naval systems). Can't find the link, but here's this (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/3319656.html?page=3)

Their Air Force is still a bit behind.

Granted, I'm a totally biased observer, but I say USA ! USA! USA!

WOLVERINES!!!!

And as far as China goes, if we invaded their turf, it would be Iraq x 10. However, were that to occur, I don't see it going down like that. We would napalm to such an extent that they wish they were Vietnamese.

Napalm was used considerably by the US during the Vietnam war. The NVA simply went underground and kept on fighting. Besides, an invasion of that magnitude will trigger a nuclear strike in retaliation, although it is uncertain whether it would be against US cities or the invasion force.

Which brings to mind an interesting question. If a defending force uses nuclear strikes on its own territory to destroy invading forces, would MAD still apply?

We really have to decide if we are talking about a conventional or unconventional war. Also, whether this is a war of defeat or occupation. Finally wether this is current military levels, or draft? Or even, allies or alone?

For all these I'll go full draft and 1v1

In a conventional war vs. single contry with a purpose of defeat. Yes, the US could take on any nation in the world. They simply have more projection power and the money to back it up.

In an unconventional war. The US would win against any nation except for those on the UN security council. Some of them would leave the US still alive, but not much left to be alive for.

In a conventional war of occupation, I would say the US could take on any nation with a population less than-say 30 million. It largely depends on the people and the conditions of the battle. The post WWII nations were easy to occupy as far as resistance. However, thats likely because they were as sick of war as anyone else.

Napalm was used considerably by the US during the Vietnam war. The NVA simply went underground and kept on fighting. Besides, an invasion of that magnitude will trigger a nuclear strike in retaliation, although it is uncertain whether it would be against US cities or the invasion force.

Which brings to mind an interesting question. If a defending force uses nuclear strikes on its own territory to destroy invading forces, would MAD still apply?


Yeah, I know what the NVA/VC did...I was just trying to point out that 'it wouldn't go down like that'...we wouldn't just simply stroll around Chinese villages, waiting to get picked off, like we're kinda doing now (Iraq; hell, Vietnam)...

To answer your question (as best I can), I don't think that China has the capability to project nukes to US soil (unless they've stolen more submarine technology than I think they have). As far as their own soil (which was actually your question), well...could we call it SAD (self-assured destruction)?

Pretty bad scenario, regardless...hope my kids don't have to go through it...

This kind of comparison is valueless without Strategic Objectives ,Political Considerations and Requirement For Engagement.

This kind of comparison is valueless without Strategic Objectives ,Political Considerations and Requirement For Engagement.

Oh, there you go, ruining what was otherwise a perfectly good "My Country is Better than Yours" thread...:)

Of course, you're right...although ameteurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics...

Of course, you're right...although ameteurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics...

You ROTC by any chance?

You ROTC by any chance?

No, prior service, US Army, 101st Airborne. A long time ago...the world was much different...much larger...

You ROTC?

The Swiss!

I agree, the Swiss have a proud military history and a strong background in responsible military training. They also have a very defensible position as far as geography is concerned.

I agree, the Swiss have a proud military history and a strong background in responsible military training. They also have a very defensible position as far as geography is concerned.

Not to mention those kick-ass knives...:D

Plus, don't they guard the Pope??

No, prior service, US Army, 101st Airborne. A long time ago...the world was much different...much larger...

You ROTC?

*salutes crisply* No. I considered it at one point.

Now I'm at Department of Justice - non-sworn, unfortunately. I'll need a college-level qualification to apply for Quantico.

It is a pointless discussion. To project power, you need to get it there. If any country was bringing their power over, you nuke the fleet. War over. Thus anyone with sufficient nuclear weapons has equal power in the context of winning a war against another power.

If you're talking about kicking the ass of non-nuclear countries, America has the power, and tragically, the will. They are number 1 in bitch whipping less powerful countries.

In a few years, China will be up their with them.

Someone earlier said the best army soldier for soldier is England. Rubbish. Many say Israel. They have lots of guerrilla war experience. Guerrilla war, and outright war are very different. I'm going to say Australians, just to see the response.

I'm going to say Australians, just to see the response.

Hmm. I heard one of the SAS Regiment guys going hot in Timor. Took a round in the neck, checked it wasn't lethal and neutralized his assilant. All in 3 seconds flat. The Australian SAS gotta be up there with the British SAS.

*salutes crisply* No. I considered it at one point.

Now I'm at Department of Justice - non-sworn, unfortunately. I'll need a college-level qualification to apply for Quantico.

*returns salute, drops it a bit too quick, just to be a smart-ass*

DOJ? Sweet. I have an old college buddy who was part of the crew that took down Traficant (corrupt Ohio politician).

I say if that's your bag, go for it. Although he needed a master's to get where he's at...you can still get there (DOJ, FBI) with a bachelor's. Go for it.

Too many people are over-confident of the American military. It really isn't that great. If it is so great, why are we still in Iraq?

China would seriously kick ass. I don't care if they're stuck with AKs. They're numbers are simply too massive. Oh, by the way guys, they do have a navy. Oh, and they do have aircraft.

However, I'm going to have to go for Canada.

This picture will explain why:

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9186/1154409567926vi4.jpg
Why are they Russians?
Why is their Russian Script in the Bottom Left corner?
http://209.85.12.227/1381/85/emo/beater.gif


America.

Why is everyone completely overlooking another country with a billion sized population, a large army, a history of agressive border disputes and a nuclear arsenal in the making?

Why is everyone completely overlooking another country with a billion sized population, a large army, a history of agressive border disputes and a nuclear arsenal in the making?

Because we just can't take India seriously? :)

No, really, that's a good question...although I don't think that they're as powerful as China (I deal with both countries in business; China's tech is more advanced), it would be a bitch to invade there. Unless they went all Ghandi on the invaders (they wouldn't), in which case they would be shot.

Bully to you for bringing them up, however...:)

Yeah, I know what the NVA/VC did...I was just trying to point out that 'it wouldn't go down like that'...we wouldn't just simply stroll around Chinese villages, waiting to get picked off, like we're kinda doing now (Iraq; hell, Vietnam)...

If the objective is occupation, then yes, that would be exactly what US troops would be doing. Unless you want to start up SS corps and death camps.


To answer your question (as best I can), I don't think that China has the capability to project nukes to US soil

Last operational capability of Chinese LRBMs allowed them to hit the western coastal cities (or was it eastern?) of the US. Certainly enough to ruin much of the economy and get whoever started the war kicked out of office.


As far as their own soil (which was actually your question), well...could we call it SAD (self-assured destruction)?

That is not my question at all. The question was one of Mutually Assured Destruction and whether it would apply if it was used on your own soil to stave off an invasion by a nuclear equipped opponent. Would destroying their armed forces in your territory with nuclear weapons result in similar retaliation against your principle cities?

From a political standpoint, it's certainly not the same since you can't say that having your invasion force destroyed is the same as complete eradication of the defenders population centers. Certainly, military hardliners wouldn't care about that, but ultimately, except in the case of a military junta, the decision will be made by a politician.

Why are they Russians?
Why is their Russian Script in the Bottom Left corner?
http://209.85.12.227/1381/85/emo/beater.gif


America.

Because it comes from a Russian website.

If the objective is occupation, then yes, that would be exactly what US troops would be doing. Unless you want to start up SS corps and death camps.

I was working from a non-occupational standpoint; only from the paradigm that we were trying to kill them & break their toys; not take their toys from them or build a NS (i.e. occupy)


[/QUOTE] Last operational capability of Chinese LRBMs allowed them to hit the western coastal cities (or was it eastern?) of the US. Certainly enough to ruin much of the economy and get whoever started the war kicked out of office.[/QUOTE]

I thought they could hit Alaska, not necessarily the west coast (LA, Seattle). If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.


[/QUOTE]That is not my question at all. The question was one of Mutually Assured Destruction and whether it would apply if it was used on your own soil to stave off an invasion by a nuclear equipped opponent. Would destroying their armed forces in your territory with nuclear weapons result in similar retaliation against your principle cities?[/QUOTE]

I honestly wouldn't see why not. Once the cat's out of the bag...

[/QUOTE]From a political standpoint, it's certainly not the same since you can't say that having your invasion force destroyed is the same as complete eradication of the defenders population centers. Certainly, military hardliners wouldn't care about that, but ultimately, except in the case of a military junta, the decision will be made by a politician.[/QUOTE]

'Decision Made By A Politician' generally equals the wrong decision; most especially in a time of war (just a personal opinion). While it's certainly logical to not equate an invasion force with a defending force, the fact that the invading force has just been wiped out means (IMHO) the folks who sent them there are now pissed...and so the nukes fly. Plus, the Cat's already out of the Bag...



**My apologies for still not figuring out the multiple quote function...I've tried cutting and pasting, manually typing...I'll figure it out some day...at least I've figured out how to preview my post so that I know it's formatted wrong before I say 'screw it' and post it anyways...**

Last operational capability of Chinese LRBMs allowed them to hit the western coastal cities (or was it eastern?) of the US. Certainly enough to ruin much of the economy and get whoever started the war kicked out of office.

I thought they could hit Alaska, not necessarily the west coast (LA, Seattle). If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.


You're thinking north korea, which we think has the ability to hit alaska, and maybe the west coast. China has the capability of hitting mainland US with its nukes. Not the greatest missiles, but they will get over here.

You're thinking north korea, which we think has the ability to hit alaska, and maybe the west coast. China has the capability of hitting mainland US with its nukes. Not the greatest missiles, but they will get over here.

LOL...DPRK can barely hit the Sea of Japan (isn't that what happened July 4th?)...if they can hit Alaska, I should be more paranoid than I am (which is pretty paranoid).

And China could very well have the ability to hit the West Coast, I could be wrong in thinking that they can't...although I don't see why they'd go after the ports that they own...(although I suppose this is a rather extreme scenario, them going after their #1 trading partner...).

LOL...DPRK can barely hit the Sea of Japan (isn't that what happened July 4th?)...if they can hit Alaska, I should be more paranoid than I am (which is pretty paranoid).

And China could very well have the ability to hit the West Coast, I could be wrong in thinking that they can't...although I don't see why they'd go after the ports that they own...(although I suppose this is a rather extreme scenario, them going after their #1 trading partner...).

Their missiles have the range. Their operators... thats another story.

Their missiles have the range. Their operators... thats another story.

Whose missiles? DPRK or PRC?

I was working from a non-occupational standpoint; only from the paradigm that we were trying to kill them & break their toys; not take their toys from them or build a NS (i.e. occupy)

So your basic premise is come over, kill a lot of things....and go back? Let's be realistic. AFAIK there hasn't been a single war throughout human history where that ever happened. Peacekeepers don't count since they don't technically fight a war in the context of nation vs nation.


I honestly wouldn't see why not. Once the cat's out of the bag...


Still a significant difference. One is a military target. The other one is a civilian target. Especially in the day and age of much touted precision weapons to destroy key infrastructure, the use of nuclear weapons against civilian population centers WILL be called mass murder, no more no less.

US development of the M-388 Davy Crockett was designed during the Cold War to combat Soviet massed tank assaults and still avoid MAD by solely targetting invading forces while not spreading significant radiation over much of Europe.


'Decision Made By A Politician' generally equals the wrong decision; most especially in a time of war (just a personal opinion).

Unless living under a military junta or dictatorship, that is what usually happens.


While it's certainly logical to not equate an invasion force with a defending force,

Not even close. The equation is invasion force to defenders civilian population. City for city. That is the principle of MAD.


the fact that the invading force has just been wiped out means (IMHO) the folks who sent them there are now pissed...and so the nukes fly. Plus, the Cat's already out of the Bag...

Which will result in the fulfillment of MAD doctrine, inviting equal retaliation.

Game over. You lose.

(although I suppose this is a rather extreme scenario, them going after their #1 trading partner...).

In this scenario, the US has already invaded China. Logically, that would suggest that they've stopped trading with each other and Kmart has gone out of business.

Under normal scenarios, the likelihood of US attacking China or vice versa is close to nil. Both economies are heavily dependent on the other, although China is diversifying it's business partners. Any attack will result in critical damage to their economies lasting decades.

I wonder how you guys rate Singapore...
very militarised/patriotic society, modern equipment, high training for their compulsory military service (which also gives them a relatively big army for their nation). Lee Kwan Yew apparently used Israel's army model to help develop the Singaporean one when he was Prime Minister.
Sure, I should think that their power projection only goes so far as to make them a regional power (and it is designed to fight off an Indonesian/Malaysian invasion), but in terms quality, I reckon they can definitely hold their own.

**My apologies for still not figuring out the multiple quote function...I've tried cutting and pasting, manually typing...I'll figure it out some day...at least I've figured out how to preview my post so that I know it's formatted wrong before I say 'screw it' and post it anyways...**

The first part doesn't need the "/" it just [ quote ] (there's spaces there so you can see it)

The Swiss!

I'd hire Swiss merceneries.

Oh, and I must say, I'd go with China or Russia. The USA (and Isreal) keeps handicapping itself. The direction those 2 nations seem to be going it looks like wars will be fought with riot police using no lethal weponry, and "POWs" will be given flowers and told to be nice from now on.
Finally, I don't believe we ever should have been in Iraq, and I don't like the way this country is headed, but actually think about the position the US is in. There hasn't been a clash of Equals in the big leagues for a while now. If everyone is weaker than you how are you supposed to have a fair fight? How can you not "pick on weaker countries" when some try to pick on the big guy?

I'm going to say Australians, just to see the response.


Partly from patriotism, partly from fact, the Australian SAS will eat your children.

But seriously, despite the fact that our army, navy and airforce suck, The Aus SAS are among the best special forces in the world.

Well... good enough to kick the crap out of anything the Americans have :D

So your basic premise is come over, kill a lot of things....and go back? Let's be realistic. AFAIK there hasn't been a single war throughout human history where that ever happened. Peacekeepers don't count since they don't technically fight a war in the context of nation vs nation.

I must admit, I wasn't playing this from the standpoint of occupying the land. Not politically realistic, I admit; no consideration to whatever political objectives brought us there. More of a 'Who can kick whose ass more' exercise.

And as far as 'come over, kill a lot of things, go back'...I (and most likely you) know several people who did that in French-Indochina...



Still a significant difference. One is a military target. The other one is a civilian target. Especially in the day and age of much touted precision weapons to destroy key infrastructure, the use of nuclear weapons against civilian population centers WILL be called mass murder, no more no less.

I was working from a WWIII paradigm, aka Apocalyptic; and I still believe that anyone whose troops are nuked will (right or wrong) consider that Carte Blanche to retaliate in kind



US development of the M-388 Davy Crockett was designed during the Cold War to combat Soviet massed tank assaults and still avoid MAD by solely targetting invading forces while not spreading significant radiation over much of Europe.

Tactical Nukes were also on the table. And I've always considered WWIII to be a Mad Max type environment; the irradiation is a given. Tina Turner, however, is not.



Unless living under a military junta or dictatorship, that is what usually happens.

It would be interesting to see who is really in control in an apocolyptic scenario; would the troop carrying the nuclear football listen to the CINC, or the CentCom commander? Just wondering...the junta is not out of the question, even in the US (although highly unlikely, I must admit).



Not even close. The equation is invasion force to defenders civilian population. City for city. That is the principle of MAD. Which will result in the fulfillment of MAD doctrine, inviting equal retaliation.

Like I said, the Cat is out of the Bag...and I don't know too much about the sino-nuclear inventory, but I'm betting we have them outnumbered (not that it takes too many). I'm also banking on the fact that they don't target Cleveland (or Detroit...or Chicago...damn, I'm screwed).






Game over. You lose.

Yeah, pretty much. I could have saved myself a lot of typing/thinking, and just stated that that's pretty much how I view WWIII. At least this is just a game...

In this scenario, the US has already invaded China. Logically, that would suggest that they've stopped trading with each other and Kmart has gone out of business.

Under normal scenarios, the likelihood of US attacking China or vice versa is close to nil. Both economies are heavily dependent on the other, although China is diversifying it's business partners. Any attack will result in critical damage to their economies lasting decades.

Or vice-versa??

I concede that trade relations would dissolve well before we fought, and that any such conflict is unlikely (for me, maybe not my kids...)

The first part doesn't need the "/" it just [ quote ] (there's spaces there so you can see it)

Thanks for the tip...I finally figured it out!!! :D

America. Unquestionably. It would take all four of the other nations you mentioned to pose a serious match to the USA.

Numerically speeking only. The US's army's training is vastly inferior to that of the UK.

Partly from patriotism, partly from fact, the Australian SAS will eat your children.

But seriously, despite the fact that our army, navy and airforce suck, The Aus SAS are among the best special forces in the world.

Well... good enough to kick the crap out of anything the Americans have :D

Given that they eat Vegemite...I think they could stomach anything.

I'll still put the Rangers, Recon, & SF against the Aussie SAS, with the US coming out on top. Not that I expect it happen; and, like you said, it's really just about patriotism at this point (it's way past my bedtime).

I wonder how you guys rate Singapore...
very militarised/patriotic society,

Also somewhat intolerant of internally generated criticism, not that their immediate neighbours are any better. And if you've been paying attention, you should know the difference between new water and Newater. :p

As far as power projection terms goes, hmmm, it doesn't seem like they're rated to go beyond the Straits, but that's to be expected really. Overall though, they're pretty decent for a country that small. Certainly able to fend off a Malaysian/Indonesian invasion although they wouldn't be able to do a lot in a long term blockade. There simply isn't enough manpower.

for very good military comparisons visit www.strategypage.com

Especially the comparative military strengths database section (which is a bit hard to find if you don't know what you're looking for).

These charts give evaluations of the quantity and quality of each nation's armed forces. The quantity of each combat unit has been derived from various open sources. Quality has been determined by evaluating historical performance. All armed forces are not equal, and this inequality has been expressed numerically. In calculating the numerical value of total strength it is important to differentiate between what floats and what doesn't. Aircraft carriers and tank divisions are very different instruments of destruction. Both cost about the same, but a carrier cannot march on Moscow, nor can a tank division hunt submarines in the Atlantic. For this reason, land and naval force capabilities are listed separately. In reality, they are not entirely separate. Naval forces, particularly carriers, can support ground combat. Tank divisions can seize ports needed by naval forces for their sustenance. Destructive effect was the main consideration in assigning values. This was modified by the mobility and flexibility of the system. Tank divisions can move over a wide area to fight while most air defense forces are limited in their capabilities and mobility. While the numbers of men and weapons are fairly accurate, estimates of quality factors are subjective. Readers may impose their own evaluations. The assessments given are based on current conditions and historical experience. Don't underestimate the historical trends.

Naval forces are shown in detail on their own charts, while on the armed forces chart they are shown as a component of total nation power. Naval power is difficult to compare to land power, as it is with land power that you ultimately defend yourself or overwhelm an opponent. For nations that are not dependent on seaborne trade, naval power is less important than those that are. For most industrial nations, and many third world countries that have periodic food shortages, loss of sea trade is a serious problem. Fortunately for the nations dependent on seaborne trade, they have a substantial naval advantage over less dependent nations. In other words, Western navies are collectively considerably larger than those controlled by continental powers.

European Nations | Middle East Nations | American Nations
East Asian Nations | African Nations | South Asian Nations

COLUMN KEY

COUNTRY lists every nation with a combat value of one or more. Nations with a combat value of less than 1 have little more than national police capability. Many smaller countries, especially those that lack a threatening neighbor, use their forces primarily for internal security. These lesser military powers often repel an invasion most effectively simply by arming the population. Nations are grouped into four regions: Europe; Middle East and North Africa; Asia and the Pacific; and the Americas.

RNK is the ranking of each nation within its region

COMBAT POWER LAND is the total combat capability of the nation's armed forces except for their navies. Certain nations like Israel, Sweden and Switzerland have a rapid mobilization capability which achieves the combat value shown within three days of mobilization. Their normal, unmobilized, combat value is less than one third of the value shown. As explained elsewhere, combat value is modified by geographical, climate and political factors. The value given here is a combination of the quantity and quality of manpower, equipment and weapons. This raw combat value is then multiplied by the force multiplier (see below) to combat value shown in this column.

NAVAL capability is separate from land value and is found on the Naval Forces chart.

TOT QUAL (total force quality) is a fraction by which raw (theoretical) combat power should be multiplied to account for imperfect leadership, component of force quality, support, training and other "soft" factors. Think of it as an efficiency rating, with "100" being perfect and "55" being a more common 55 percent efficiency.

TOT POP (population in millions) indicates the nation's relative military manpower resources. Population is also a more meaningful indicator of a nation's size than territory.

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is a rough gage of the nation's economic power. This does not translate immediately into military power because of the time needed to convert industry from civilian to military production. Mobilization of some types of military equipment takes years. Other types of weapons, especially those using electronics, can be brought to bear in months.

ACT MEN (active military manpower in thousands) is the total uniformed, paid manpower organized into combat and support units. Because of the widely varying systems of organizing military manpower, this figure is at best a good indicator of the personnel devoted to the military. Industrialized nations hire many civilians to perform support duties, while other nations flesh out skeleton units with ill-prepared reserves, uncertain effect on wartime strength. The use of reserve troops varies considerably.

MIL BUD (Military Budget in millions of dollars) is the current annual armed forces spending of that nation. All nations use somewhat different accounting systems for defense spending. Efforts are made to eliminate some of the more gross attempts at hiding arms expenditures. Some of the figures, particularly for smaller nations, may be off by 10 percent either way.

BUD MAN is the annual cost per man for armed forces in dollars. This is an excellent indicator of the quantity and, to a lesser extent, the quality of weapons and equipment. Some adjustments should be made for different levels of personnel costs, research and development, strategic weapons and waste. The United States, in particular, is prone to all four afflictions. The precise adjustments for these factors are highly debatable. One possible adjustment would be to cut the US cost per man by at least one third. Other nations with strategic programs and large R&D establishments (Russia, Britain, France, China, etc.) should be adjusted with deductions of no more than 15 percent. Britain could also take another 5 or 10 percent cut because of its all-volunteer forces higher payroll. At the other extreme, many nations produce a credible defense force using far less wealth. Low paid conscripts, good leadership and the sheer need to improvise enables many of these poorer nations to overcome their low budgets. However, most nations end up with what they pay for.

AFV (Armored Fighting Vehicles). These include tanks, armored personnel carriers and most other armored combat and support vehicles. AFV are the primary components of a ground offensive, and greatly enhance chances of success.

AIRCRAFT CMBT are the number of combat aircraft devoted to land operations. This, like AFV, is a good indicator of raw power. The quality of the aircraft, their pilots, ground crew and leadership, air force are the most important factors in the air power's overall value.

The Total Quality is calculated by assigning 0 (lowest) to 9 (highest) values for the following components of combat capability.

Ldrs is leadership. The quality of officers and NCOs.

Eqp is equipment. The quantity and quality of military equipment.

Exp is experience. Not just combat experience, but the quality of training.

Spt is support. This is logistics, the ability to get military supplies to the troops.

Mob is mobilization. The ability to mobilize the national resources for combat.

Trad is tradition. Military tradition, good military habits, based on practical experience.
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp


Compare the rankings of those in the OP:

(Note: ranking is regional.)

Armed Forces of the World
Land Tot Tot Act Mil Bud Air
Country Rnk Power Qual Pop GDP Men Bud Man AFV Cmbt Ldrs Eqp Exp Spt Mob Trad
United States 1 2488 93 285 $11000 1400 $340000 $243 32000 7600 8 9 8 9 9 7

China 1 827 32 1300 $800 2100 $40000 $19 14500 3300 6 5 5 6 4 6

Israel 1 617 61 6.4 $48 550 $5500 $10 10500 570 9 8 9 3 3 8

Russia 1 369 40 142 $1400 850 $70000 $82 18000 2100 6 6 5 5 6 5

United Kingdom 2 259 77 59 $1400 210 $37000 $176 4100 420 8 8 8 7 7 9

4 of the 5 listed by the OP are the tops in their region, but even China doesn't come close to the US, with 1/3 of it's power rating.

This of course is raw ratings, without concern for the comitments that others have mentioned.

And a couple people like to BS about here:

Korea, North 3 274 20 24 $15 1000 $1200 $1 5500 600 6 4 3 4 5 4

Japan 5 150 73 127 $4600 240 $47000 $196 2100 380 6 8 6 8 8 7

Points: DPRK isn't the bifg scary that people talk about, and Japan isn't the unarmed state people usually think of.

Finland! :P

Man for man, I would have to say the British Army. Traditionally highly disciplined, well-equipped and, when you look at their track record (outnumbered seriously in almost all of their major wars, the vast majority of which were won) they've got a lot going for them. The Royal Navy is admittedly not nearly as powerful in comparison to everything else as it was in the past but it still holds a prominent position in world rankings; in terms of gross tonnage it is the second largest navy on the Earth (*sighs* Bloody Americans stealing our position as top dog...) and still maintains highly advanced technology and highly-trained/disciplined crews.
As for the RAF, well, that's still fairly good on paper but in my opinion it's a relatively undeveloped part of the British armed forces (note that I did not say that it's irrelevant or, indeed, not a powerful factor. It just isn't measuring up to its full potential). The SAS is the most highly trained special forces unit in the world. All this combined would give the UK a brilliant chance against any other nation in a man to man scenario.

If it's not a case of man for man, then I would have to say China.
Let's face it, the USA's glory days are over. China is a highly militaristic nation with a dedicated populace, the biggest land army on Earth, a large navy and a load of nuclear weapons. Their airforce is admittedly quite rubbish, but if they concentrated on bringing it up to standard then they would quite easily become a leading air power.
The USA has a much smaller, much less dedicated population (how many Americans actually support a leader when he goes to war?) which would prove a major factor in any serious war that the USA embarked upon. Their nuclear arsenal is too damned dangerous for everyone concerned, especially themselves and believe me, their armed forces would quickly falter if the public doesn't support the war. Think WWII Britain: on paper they had virtually no chance of winning but the population rallied around a popular leader and gave their full support to the war effort, even despite the dark times that they were in. The result? Battle of Britain is won, Battle of the Atlantic is won, the North African campaigns are won and a lot more things are won. Not least, Britain itself survives long enough for the Empire, Commonwealth and the USA to step in, assuring its victory. If the British population didn't believe in the war and the cause, and if they didn't have faith in Sir Winston Churchill, then they would have quickly been destroyed.
In short, the USA, without the support of its populace, falls down to perhaps tenth or lower in the ranking.
Russia, in a land war, would be quite powerful. While their navy is pretty much irrelevant and their airforce leaves worlds to be desired, they have advanced to the point that the 'Russian steamroller' is a feasible method to gain victory once more.
Germany and Japan also have the potential to be great military powers. While they are both traditionally cautious of having a powerful military, primarily due to WWII.

The Right Hon. Lord Sir Ilaer, CBE, MBE, OBE, Newly-Created Minister for Spreading Proper English (NBIP member)

Those that say "look to history, England are great". They are. That's becuase in WWI and WWII many of the stats have the Aussies stats chucked in with the British.:D
But seriously, look at the survival rate of Australians compared to any other country on the death marches, when ships were sunk. Aussies are the best at toughing it out, and getting the job done, no matter how messed up they are, and that is critical in being very combat effective.

I should point out that Russia is easily number two, if only because it has the ability to destroy the entire planet in one fell swoop.
Sure, its manpower isnt that great anymore, but when you have the ability to turn an opponent into a sheet of solid glass, who needs tanks?
So, Russia can go MAD and, as a result, the US will do the same thing. China will most likely contribute what it has and whoosh! World over.
Russia wins though 'cause it has people in Siberia, which is too big to nuke...I guess Canada wins to :P

Points: DPRK isn't the bifg scary that people talk about, and Japan isn't the unarmed state people usually think of.

The problem is that the NK army is fanatiaclly loyal to Senior Kim, and thinks that the US and South Koreans are actually Satan in disguise, and will eat their children givin half a chance. And smell bad.
As too Japan...they rely too much on their giant robot corps ;)

Too many people are over-confident of the American military. It really isn't that great. If it is so great, why are we still in Iraq?

China would seriously kick ass. I don't care if they're stuck with AKs. They're numbers are simply too massive. Oh, by the way guys, they do have a navy. Oh, and they do have aircraft.

However, I'm going to have to go for Canada.

This picture will explain why:

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9186/1154409567926vi4.jpg

Wars are fought decreasingly with men. Soon, manpower won't matter at all. Aas of now, and within the next 50-yeara period, China has a very weak navy, airforce, and outdated weapons. Their only strong area is their army, but let's see... some of their soldiers didn't even pass a health exam, most of them have the meagerest of training, and some are armed with KNIVES. That's it. An average amaerican, with state of the art technology, could kill about 20 of them in combat, easily. So for now, the US could dog China, especially with the powerfull UK and France, Israel, Canada, most of south america, the rest of Europe, and other places while China has... Russia, north korea, and little minorities with armies full of twelve year olds.

Wars are fought decreasingly with men. Soon, manpower won't matter at all. Aas of now, and within the next 50-yeara period, China has a very weak navy, airforce, and outdated weapons. Their only strong area is their army, but let's see... some of their soldiers didn't even pass a health exam, most of them have the meagerest of training, and some are armed with KNIVES. That's it. An average amaerican, with state of the art technology, could kill about 20 of them in combat, easily. So for now, the US could dog China, especially with the powerfull UK and France, Israel, Canada, most of south america, the rest of Europe, and other places while China has... Russia, north korea, and little minorities with armies full of twelve year olds.

The thing is, a war with China would have seriously negative effects on the US economy, because if the war went on for more than a year, you can be that the US would destroy a lot of Chinese infrastructure.
Which means that US buisness would have to buy elsewhere.
Which means that goods theyve been buying quite cheaply for deacades are going to be quite expensive.
Which means people will buy less stuff.
And do we know what happens when people buy less stuff?

It would hurt China as well, obviously, but only for as long as it took them to rebuild. The effects on the US economy would go on for much longer.