NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is the world's strongest military?

US
China
Russia
UK
Israel

Why?

What context?

Is there a fucking point or do you WANT some militarist waving their dick in your face?

Attack power? Projection? Influence? Success rate? Be more specific. The US covers most of them, but Israel could take the cake for influence.

Russia.

It's the US. It is that simple. Most money and a very large highly trained military equiped with the latest development in weapons technology.

Why?

What context?

Is there a fucking point or do you WANT some militarist waving their dick in your face?
LOL

America.
Though the Chinese are bigger.

I'm thinking Poland, actually. They have magical powers, and that's better than a tank IMHO.


:gundge:

*sigh*

It's America. Stop asking, it's just rubbing it in... mumble grumble rule britannia trails off...

Anyone here who says America, is someone who is bais or out of their minds. First off yes I live in the USA. Now just on size America losses to both Russia and China. Loo it up, and you will see for your self. Although, China is a giving. As for influance, America is on the corse of lossing its influnce. Much of the world sees America as the Empire of America. We now have more enmies than allies. Israel and Russia would be key on Influnce and maybey Israel. Attack power would go to Russia and China once again. These countries with their numbers and tec can esaily out power the rest. Also the two countries ussally are on the same sides thesre days. I belive if there is a WW3 those two would join up. The only place that America is the big winner, is at getting troops at places the fastest.

So make my choice BOTH China and Russia.

Anyone here who says America, is someone who is bais or out of their minds. First off yes I live in the USA. Now just on size America losses to both Russia and China. Loo it up, and you will see for your self. Although, China is a giving. As for influance, America is on the corse of lossing its influnce. Much of the world sees America as the Empire of America. We now have more enmies than allies. Israel and Russia would be key on Influnce and maybey Israel. Attack power would go to Russia and China once again. These countries with their numbers and tec can esaily out power the rest. Also the two countries ussally are on the same sides thesre days. I belive if there is a WW3 those two would join up. The only place that America is the big winner, is at getting troops at places the fastest.

So make my choice BOTH China and Russia.

sheer numbers does not guarantee victory.

Did you bother to read my other reasons. Their numbers are only one of MANY things. There techology is alomst as goos as ours. It will be better soon. Did you know America has very few enginers compare to the rest of the world? Look it up. Russia and China are gaining gorund and fast. Also their enconmy is growing faster than ours. Besides 200million soilders would run over America.

The US has a real nice military, we just have problems applying it. :/

Did you bother to read my other reasons. Their numbers are only one of MANY things. There techology is alomst as goos as ours. It will be better soon. Did you know America has very few enginers compare to the rest of the world? Look it up. Russia and China are gaining gorund and fast. Also their enconmy is growing faster than ours. Besides 200million soilders would run over America.

if your talking about 2 on 1 yes, but this thread is about the strength of single armies, obviously a coalition of every nation on earth would defeat America.

Our technology is superior to theirs, the Russians just began to produce the new T-90s, and those are still not as good as the M1A1. Russia's army got stomped by a few mujahideen in Afghanistan. China's army is largely armed with AKs and their derivatives, they just started producing a new bullpup type weapon called the type 86, IIRC.

sheer numbers does not guarantee victory.

Points to Battles of Issus,Gaugamela.

Oh, and the Iraq war is proving that the US army is begging to fail. If you can not come up with ways to win in wars like the one we are in now, than your really going to be in dep shit in the future.

The Vatican.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Swiss_Guard.jpg

Points to Battle of Issus(333BC)31,000 greeks and macedonians and 100,000+ perisans

Good point, one problem today battles are fought very different.

LOL

America.
Though the Chinese are bigger.

Force multipliers are quite important, after all.

Oh, and the Iraq war is proving that the US army is begging to fail. If you can not come up with ways to win in wars like the one we are in now, than your really going to be in dep shit in the future.

A counter-insurgency is a radically different type of war from what the United States Military is designd to fight. Instead, our forces are built around the paradigm of the Great Power General War. Tanks, Fighter-Interceptors and Aircraft Carriers are the hallmark of a great power military. A counter-insurgency campaign is something radically different.

OK, let's face it. THE US WINS.

It's got the best outright fighter, best outright bomber and some pretty solid strike aircraft. Not to mention the Army and Navy (neither of which are my area but stil), they may not have quite the training of us brits or the numbers of the PLA but they have the tech and the projection capability to leave either envious.

The Eurofighter an J-10 are both magnificent aircraft but neither can take the F-22 in air combat (though both could own it in the strike role and the F-18 probably couldn;t keep up with the J-10 forget the Typhoon as a multirole aircraft).

Good point, one problem today battles are fought very different.

but it shows that numbers do not mean abosolte victory but it certianly helps.

Numbers won the wars before too.

Look at WW2, German and her allies had better tanks, weapons, planes, you name it. In the end though the NUMBERS won and yet they were far ahead of us in weapons. They had jet fighters too by the 1945's.

A counter-insurgency is a radically different type of war from what the United States Military is designd to fight. Instead, our forces are built around the paradigm of the Great Power General War. Tanks, Fighter-Interceptors and Aircraft Carriers are the hallmark of a great power military. A counter-insurgency campaign is something radically different.

So ture. Yet any country can adpot and fight like insurgencies. Now what? America can't win because they fail to adpot. Thats what is key in battles.

Anyone here who says America, is someone who is bais or out of their minds. First off yes I live in the USA. Now just on size America losses to both Russia and China. Loo it up, and you will see for your self. Although, China is a giving. As for influance, America is on the corse of lossing its influnce. Much of the world sees America as the Empire of America. We now have more enmies than allies. Israel and Russia would be key on Influnce and maybey Israel. Attack power would go to Russia and China once again. These countries with their numbers and tec can esaily out power the rest. Also the two countries ussally are on the same sides thesre days. I belive if there is a WW3 those two would join up. The only place that America is the big winner, is at getting troops at places the fastest.

So make my choice BOTH China and Russia.
Laser tanks and force projection say differently.

Numbers won the wars before too.

Look at WW2, German and her allies had better tanks, weapons, planes, you name it. In the end though the NUMBERS won and yet they were far ahead of us in weapons. They had jet fighters too by the 1945's.

The US also had the best fleet on the seas, the best bomber force, the best tactical air support and, most importantly, the best logistics. We kept our troops supplied and fed, the Nazis couldn't pull that off.

USA, of course. China has more manpower, but we're way ahead in everything else. I don't think we could invade either China or Russia, but they couldn't invade us either. Force projection is the key to being a global superpower, and in that the USA is the best there is.

Numbers won the wars before too.

Look at WW2, German and her allies had better tanks, weapons, planes, you name it. In the end though the NUMBERS won and yet they were far ahead of us in weapons. They had jet fighters too by the 1945's.

We had jet fighters too. Gloster Meteor.

Sure it wasn;t a transonic bomber-killer but then, we didn't need one.

Laser tanks and force projection say differently.

China and Russia are working on lasers and have some.

The US also had the best fleet on the seas, the best bomber force, the best tactical air support and, most importantly, the best logistics. We kept our troops supplied and fed, the Nazis couldn't pull that off.

I'd like to point out that you relied on us Brits for that quite a bit...

Typhoons and such did at least as much at Mustangs in the West (at least for CAS, your bomber escorts are another thing entirely)

The US also had the best fleet on the seas, the best bomber force, the best tactical air support and, most importantly, the best logistics. We kept our troops supplied and fed, the Nazis couldn't pull that off.

That was in the end of the war. The amricans WERE LOSSING AT ONE POINT.

China and Russia are working on lasers and have some.

Lasers are irrelevant, force projection is what matters, and for my money, the fact that the US Navy has 16 of the worlds 17.5 acres of carrier space counts for a hell of a lot more than a couple million men under arms.

We had jet fighters too. Gloster Meteor.

Sure it wasn;t a transonic bomber-killer but then, we didn't need one.

Mhm, If the war lasted a year longer, you would of seen a very different outcome. TURST ME.

Numbers won the wars before too.

Look at WW2, German and her allies had better tanks, weapons, planes, you name it. In the end though the NUMBERS won and yet they were far ahead of us in weapons. They had jet fighters too by the 1945's.

but the so called best tanks were not that good. sure they had armor and weapons but they had transmission's that broke down so much that most of them were justdug in and use as bunker. they didn't have enough fuel, or enoguh anything for that matter.

That was in the end of the war. The amricans WERE LOSSING AT ONE POINT.

No, actually the US was at no point losing the Second World War. It hung in the balance until Midway in the Pacific, and there were concerns about the effectiveness of the U-Boat blockade of Britain, but, no, the US was never losing at any point in the way.

Mhm, If the war lasted a year longer, you would of seen a very different outcome. TURST ME.

Meaning what, exactly?

Lasers are irrelevant, force projection is what matters, and for my money, the fact that the US Navy has 16 of the worlds 17.5 acres of carrier space counts for a hell of a lot more than a couple million men under arms.

So, Russia and China are working on that and will win in that race later. They build faster than America. This is an fact, I have study this on wiki. Also who makes all of America's goods....CHINA. Who gives us oil....RUSSIA.

where's the "who the fuck cares option" in this poll?

Mhm, If the war lasted a year longer, you would of seen a very different outcome. TURST ME.

If the war had lasted a year longer Little Boy and Fat Man would have found targets in Europe, not Japan.

Mhm, If the war lasted a year longer, you would of seen a very different outcome. TURST ME.

Turst you? Sounds dirty.
And the laser tanks thing was a joke...

Don't know about the strongest. But the best is the french. They have a truly independant ICMB nuclear capability making them unconquerable, yet they don't spend that much on it.

Well done.

Obviously in the breaking things and killing people contest the US wins.

Turst you? Sounds dirty.
And the laser tanks thing was a joke...

no joke for China. They have leasers for soilders, just not tanks...

So, Russia and China are working on that and will win in that race later. They build faster than America. This is an fact, I have study this on wiki. Also who makes all of America's goods....CHINA. Who gives us oil....RUSSIA.

Truthiness of the first order.

We import nearly as much oil from the US Virgin Islands as we do from Russia.

Who gives us oil....RUSSIA.

Waaaaaaaaaaay down the list: just slightly over a tenth the amount the US gets from Canada.

Mhm, If the war lasted a year longer, you would of seen a very different outcome. TURST ME.

If the war had lasted a year longer we'd have needed the freakin' Aegis to keep the V2's off our arses. Of course by then we'd also have pounded every surviving Luftwaffe airfield into the dirt and maybe have gotten out arses in gear to at least build an equivalent to the Arado 234. Hell maybe we'd even have gotten our supersonic fighter in the air before the X-1 was even a technologist's fever-dream.

Any of you don't belive me look at...

HistoryChannel.com

wiki

CIS fact book

and google.com

It's the US, with China in a far second. The Russian military is a joke, a book I found in a local store mentions the average Russian pilot only getting around 2 hours of flight time a month due to a lack of funding their armed forces recieve. China has no real problem with funding, even though they have good equipment developed, the majority of the PLA doesn't have it. They have funding enough to keep their troops supplied, but it'll be awhile until they can start deploying the Top of the Line weapons and vehicles they've developed. It's hard to update an army that size.

America really has nothing to worry about in an open war for at least 20 years, then China might be able to mount a real threat, and if the Russian military starts getting more funds they'd pose a significant problem as well if war broke out.

We win sort of by default, since most countries stopped trying so hard to keep up after the cold war ended.

Waaaaaaaaaaay down the list: just slightly over a tenth the amount the US gets from Canada.

thats changing...and it is more

It's the US, with China in a far second. The Russian military is a joke, a book I found in a local store mentions the average Russian pilot only getting around 2 hours of flight time a month due to a lack of funding their armed forces recieve. China has no real problem with funding, even though they have good equipment developed, the majority of the PLA doesn't have it. They have funding enough to keep their troops supplied, but it'll be awhile until they can start deploying the Top of the Line weapons and vehicles they've developed. It's hard to update an army that size.

America really has nothing to worry about in an open war for at least 20 years, then China might be able to mount a real threat, and if the Russian military starts getting more funds they'd pose a significant problem as well if war broke out.

We win sort of by default, since most countries stopped trying so hard to keep up after the cold war ended.

thats a joke.

I find it necessary to point out that without American grain, the Soviets would have starved to death in `40-`41 (ya know when they Nazi's were busy kicking the Soviet's butt)
The Nazi's biggest problem in defeating the Soviets was Hitler; refused to let his General's form defensive positions to repel the poorly trained (if trained at all), mostly starving Soviet soldier.

but as for numbers not always meaning victory, that ought to be obvious Hannibal was severely outnumbered but still managed to ambush the twice as large (not sure on exact number mind you), well trained Roman legion....in an open plain and wipe it out to the man. Or the Tin Can Fleet in the Pacific (look it up if you don't know it, i've no time to write more)

thats changing...and it is more

Even Angola shipped more crude oil to the US than Russia last year.

Anyhow, what did you mean about the outcome of the war being different if it had dragged on another year? (aside from just '[i]if things had been different they would have been different')

no joke for China. They have leasers for soilders, just not tanks...
Link?
Also, spellcheck is your friend. Please don't make me whip out The Grammar Police.

Do any of you know what the Star Wars weapon deffense is? Well if you do, you might nnot know Russia has made its own counter deefense. They have tested misslies that could now get past any future Star wars weapons.

thats changing...and it is more

Yeah, we get almost as much from the US Virgin Islands as we do from Russia.

Why do we always have this dicussion? The United States and the EU will always have the strongest military. Why, because we spend the most on it.

Link?
Also, spellcheck is your friend. Please don't make me whip out The Grammar Police.

Hister channel on their programs i will dig it up and bring on the grammar poilce plz.

Do any of you know what the Star Wars weapon deffense is? Well if you do, you might nnot know Russia has made its own counter deefense. They have tested misslies that could now get past any future Star wars weapons.

Are they the Rebels or the Empire?

Why do we always have this dicussion? The United States and the EU will always have the strongest military. Why, because we spend the most on it.

And yet it remains lions led by donkeys.

Are they the Rebels or the Empire?

They're the Klingons :D

I vote...the vatican.

Are they the Rebels or the Empire?

You guys prove my point, most Americans will be bais and refuse to belive that no country will ever pass or as in many ways.

Hister channel on their programs i will dig it up...

???

You guys prove my point, most Americans will be bais and refuse to belive that no country will ever pass or as in many ways.

There's a rather notable argumentative fallacy right here, can you see what it is?

???

I betcha five bucks he's under 15.

???

opps, Histery Channel

As for Chinese military technology, most of the army is armed with AK-47 Clones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army#Firearms
They are beginning to replace them with QBZ-95s but that won't be for a long time.

2/3 of their tank force is comprised of old T-54s, thats the same tank the Iraqis used wasn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army#Land_weapons

The J-10s and 11s might be comparable to F-18s, but they have less than 100 of them in use.

opps, Histery Channel

www.history.com

I betcha five bucks he's under 15.

Quite possibly: is the word 'hister' one in use by the younger generation? What does it mean?

I betcha five bucks he's under 15.

No, but thanx for the 5$.

As for Chinese military technology, most of the army is armed with AK-47 Clones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army#Firearms
They are beginning to replace them with QBZ-95s but that won't be for a long time.

2/3 of their tank force is comprised of old T-54s, thats the same tank the Iraqis used wasn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army#Land_weapons

The J-10s and 11s might be comparable to F-18s, but they have less than 200 of them in use.

Nope, the Iraqis were equipped with the T-72 primarily. They purchased them from the Russians during the Iran-Iraq War, much better tank than the T-54, but still has a terrible range on its main gun.

You guys prove my point, most Americans will be bais and refuse to belive that no country will ever pass or as in many ways.

So I'm biased because my belief is different than yours?
And seriously, get Firefox 2. It has a built in spell check. Please?

sheer numbers does not guarantee victory.

Even if it did, Russia would lose out to North Korea and India aswell as the United States in terms of active troops. If we were going by spending then it would be the United States hands down. Currently it spends about 38% of the total expenditures of all nations in the world combined and still it only amounts to something like 3% of GDP. In terms of naval strength, only Britain and France are really comparable to the US as blue-water navies, although Russia has a substantial (declining) ability to project naval force, and the PRC is trying to realize blue-water capabilities. Russia is still a pretty sizable military power but it won´t be in about 20 years given the state of its economy, infrastructure, and current Russian demographics in general. Israel has a substantial ability to project military force but only for very limited periods of time and it probably doesn´t have the resources to win a sustained conflict. I´d also probably rank France ahead of Britain in military strength. The US is pretty well entrenched as the world´s leading military power although I would say that China may soon supplant the US as the leading power in East Asia. The PRP is a distant, but solid second on the global stage. Russia is barely third but it´s sliding down a pretty slippery slope (remember the good old days with the CCCP?). The UK and France are in a near tie for fourth (although Germany and Japan are roughly equals in terms of defensive capacity). Israel, India, and the two Koreas are on the next tier.

Nope, the Iraqis were equipped with the T-72 primarily. They purchased them from the Russians during the Iran-Iraq War.

:rolleyes:

Most of the other 1/3 is comprised of light tanks, no match for a main battle tank like the M1A1 or the Challenger 2. A few of the relatively advanced type 99s have been put into action.

Most of the other 1/3 is comprised of light tanks, no match for a main battle tank like the M1A1 or the Challenger 2.

Well, yeah, but it isn't as if UK and US forces don't also field similar light tanks/IFVs.

Uhm, Soviet_Union666, from what i've seen your either foreign, with alot too learn of the English language, moderately dyslexic, or you have never heard the words "spell" and "checker" in the same sentence. Either way, your views are flawed.

Why the US military is better than Russia, or that of China's.

-Modern equipment available too all soldiers. In China, not all soldiers are armed with even the most basic of body armor utility. Russia, is using old equipment.

-Air superiority. Its plain and simple, Russian MIGs and cheap Chinese clones of 1980's aircraft don't exactly match up.

-Economically, we do not import everything from China. You seem too forget, if we receive so much from China, then perhaps their exportation infrastructure, DEPENDS on us?

-I have no American bias on this subject, I'm simply well informed. Our intelligence agencies trample that of Chinese state intelligence, or Russia's.... whatever that is that succeeded the KGB.

-Our tank force, is the worlds most modern. (Though Britons is incredibly close)

So please, Soviet_Union666 enough of this nonsense.

oh, and another vote for the Vatican here.

thats a joke.

You mind telling me what's a joke about that? Obsolete and underfunded, the Russia military is a laughing stock. Personal lasers for Chinese soldiers? We're developing aircraft with laser weapons right now and we already have a laser system capable of shooting morter rounds out of the air, can't manage to find a link to it though. It isn't really practical right now though, it's like the size of a small house if I remember right. All China has at the moment is an automated turret they plan on putting on tanks that will blind snipers.
http://www.iwar.org.uk/rma/resources/energy-weapons/mowthorpe02.html
(Yes, not the most reliable source, but I can't find my sources from a paper I wrote awhile back.)

Well, yeah, but it isn't as if UK and US forces don't also field similar light tanks/IFVs.

Of course, but I'm saying America has advanced main battle tanks as well as lights, whereas the Chinese have decrepit, T-54s and light tanks.

oh, and another vote for the Vatican here.
Hear, hear.

No one can match up to the Swiss guard, and...

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

Given the following situations:

US invades China: very strong PRC advantage

US invades Russia: small, but substantial Russian advantage

China invades US: near impossible

Russia invades US: near impossible

Russia vs. China: substantial Chinese advantage

Occupation would be extremely difficult in all cases

Any war fought any substantial distance from the borders of all participants gives a large advantage to the US.


Also, I believe it was the FSB that followed the KGB right?

where's the "other" option

Ok, i am sorry to burst all your bubbles that think Russia or China will out do USA, but that is not going to happen. For one the USA has the largest TRAINED Military, Maybe the Chinese and Russians have the largest standing armies, but not as well trained as the USA. Sorry, but training and equiptment will out do numbers any dy of the week. Trust me, when say that a heavly armed tank or machine gun bunker will hold off tons of men before falling....

The reason we're not doing so well in the Iraq war is we're not trying to take them over. We're trying to change their government to a democracy which we have and calm down revolts. We can't just bomb everything cause then we would kill innocent citizens.

where's the "other" option

Because the only ones that any serious analyst would consider are on the poll. And the worthless insurgents don't count. They can sort-of fight a psychological campaign in the middle east, but they cannot project power to the US.

And yet it remains lions led by donkeys.

No, it's donkeys led by lions. That's the problem.

Donkeys are dependable, good natured and hardworking. Lions basically shit, sleep and kill shit when they feel like it.

Because the only ones that any serious analyst would consider are on the poll. And the worthless insurgents don't count. They can sort-of fight a psychological campaign in the middle east, but they cannot project power to the US.

I consider the will of every Muslim on the planet to take up arms for God and the defence of their people to be stronger than any nation's military. A man's will to fight and die for God is far greater than the will to die for his country.

should be noted that before anyone gets crazy, I am NOT advocating any sort of Jihad against anyone nor am I saying not patriotic. But forced to make the choice I will fight for God and go to paradise before I fight against him and burn in hell

Anyone here who says America, is someone who is bais or out of their minds. First off yes I live in the USA. Now just on size America losses to both Russia and China. Loo it up, and you will see for your self. Although, China is a giving. As for influance, America is on the corse of lossing its influnce. Much of the world sees America as the Empire of America. We now have more enmies than allies. Israel and Russia would be key on Influnce and maybey Israel. Attack power would go to Russia and China once again. These countries with their numbers and tec can esaily out power the rest. Also the two countries ussally are on the same sides thesre days. I belive if there is a WW3 those two would join up. The only place that America is the big winner, is at getting troops at places the fastest.

So make my choice BOTH China and Russia.

If America didn't send all those military supplies to Russia, then people in Moscow would be speaking German right now. Russland kann meinen Glied saugen.

I consider the will of every Muslim on the planet to take up arms for God and the defence of their people to be stronger than any nation's military. A man's will to fight and die for God is far greater than the will to die for his country.

should be noted that before anyone gets crazy, I am NOT advocating any sort of Jihad against anyone nor am I saying not patriotic. But forced to make the choice I will fight for God and go to paradise before I fight against him and burn in hell

The people's will to fight does make a difference, but the Arab nations' wars against Israel proved that sometimes the will to fight for Allah just isn't enough to win.

Russland kann meinen Glied saugen.Learn to spell.

I consider the will of every Muslim on the planet to take up arms for God and the defence of their people to be stronger than any nation's military. A man's will to fight and die for God is far greater than the will to die for his country.

should be noted that before anyone gets crazy, I am NOT advocating any sort of Jihad against anyone nor am I saying not patriotic. But forced to make the choice I will fight for God and go to paradise before I fight against him and burn in hell

Well, I know that, being Agnostic, I'd much rather die in defense of my Country than religeon, so long as you believe in what you're fighting for, it doesn't make much difference if it's religeously motivated or not.

Russia's army got stomped by a few mujahideen in Afghanistan.
Not to be rude...but NATO is getting itself stomped by the same people right now!

It's not like the Soviets ever actually really lost battles when they engaged the Mujahideen. They had their Hind Helicopters and air support and tanks, and so on.

The problem was that the Afghan fighters were never actually beaten. They just retreated, recruited a few new guys and attack again a month later. Pretty much the same as now.

Economically, we do not import everything from China. You seem too forget, if we receive so much from China, then perhaps their exportation infrastructure, DEPENDS on us?
Oh, I think in case of war the Chinese might just find something to do with their factories. :p

-Metal Rain (gun/artillery)
-Bombs that rain copper and pwn ENTIRE tank divisions
-The secret "area 51"-esque aircraft (They moved some stuff away to adapt to the Air Force's change in priorities)
-NLOS (Fire 5 shells at a target from miles away... and have all 5 shells hit AT THE SAME TIME)
-Laser AA (in development)
-Aircraft carriers
-F22
-LIDAR
-Teh $$$ (we still got some, you know)
-Resources (we still do have several important resources here too)

and the fact that we still lead the way as far as tech goes.

Plus the EMP bombs that teh gov't is developing

Not to be rude...but NATO is getting itself stomped by the same people right now!

It's not like the Soviets ever actually really lost battles when they engaged the Mujahideen. They had their Hind Helicopters and air support and tanks, and so on.

The problem was that the Afghan fighters were never actually beaten. They just retreated, recruited a few new guys and attack again a month later. Pretty much the same as now.


Oh, I think in case of war the Chinese might just find something to do with their factories. :p

Let's be fair here. Most of what little NATO is doing involves hiding in the north of afganistan. It is the UK and Canada - mostly the UK - that is getting stomped. And NATO has refused redeployment requests from the UK. Moreover the US has its thumb up its butt in afaganistan.

-Metal Rain (gun/artillery)
-Bombs that rain copper and pwn ENTIRE tank divisions
-NLOS (Fire 5 shells at a target from miles away... and have all 5 shells hit AT THE SAME TIME)
-Laser AA (in development)
-Aircraft carriers


We aren't the only ones that have those you know, they do help though.

Israel is merely a US puppet, so it's not worth considering. UK is decent. Germany has a more powerful conventional military, but not the nukes that the UK is allowed to have.

Let's be fair here. Most of what little NATO is doing involves hiding in the north of afganistan. It is the UK and Canada - mostly the UK - that is getting stomped. And NATO has refused redeployment requests from the UK. Moreover the US has its thumb up its butt in afaganistan.
It's not a UK or Canada mission though. It's a NATO operation, in which Canada and the UK just happen to be providing the most troops. So strictly speaking the NATO operation is being stomped.

Personally, I don't agree with the internal policies and national caveats anyways. Even though I don't think the German Army is physically capable of conducting combat operations in the south (unless they give up the north, allowing the Taliban to start hanging around there to), I disagree with these flat-out refusals and special conditions.

NATO committed to it as a team and NATO needs to work this out as a team. It makes no sense to have one or two member nations carry such a disproportionate burden.

As for the US, it's all down to Iraq. If Bush hadn't decided that that would be a good way to spend his time in office, the US would be free to have 100,000 or more troops in southern Afghanistan, rather than 10,000 or whatever it is now.

Germany has a more powerful conventional military, but not the nukes that the UK is allowed to have.
That's a good one. :D

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,435368,00.html
With deployments in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Africa and now the Middle East, Germany's military, the Bundeswehr, is fast becoming the global service provider for German foreign policy. But the force is insufficiently prepared for its new tasks and, as it is about to embark to Lebanon on its next foreign mission, remains underfunded and poorly equipped.

Anyone here who says America, is someone who is bais or out of their minds. First off yes I live in the USA. Now just on size America losses to both Russia and China. Loo it up, and you will see for your self. Although, China is a giving. As for influance, America is on the corse of lossing its influnce. Much of the world sees America as the Empire of America. We now have more enmies than allies. Israel and Russia would be key on Influnce and maybey Israel. Attack power would go to Russia and China once again. These countries with their numbers and tec can esaily out power the rest. Also the two countries ussally are on the same sides thesre days. I belive if there is a WW3 those two would join up. The only place that America is the big winner, is at getting troops at places the fastest.

So make my choice BOTH China and Russia.

America is way better supplied, trained and has much better technology that both of those. If you want to say taht the Russians are better, then just look at who won the Cold War, we may have not fired a single shot, but our economy, diplomacy and the threat of our military won it for us

I consider the will of every Muslim on the planet to take up arms for God and the defence of their people to be stronger than any nation's military. A man's will to fight and die for God is far greater than the will to die for his country.

should be noted that before anyone gets crazy, I am NOT advocating any sort of Jihad against anyone nor am I saying not patriotic. But forced to make the choice I will fight for God and go to paradise before I fight against him and burn in hell

ORLY?

It's the same bullshit about "spiritual power" that the Japanese were spouting before the Second World War, look where that got them. Having a billion untrained, random people with AK's means nothing in power projection. It would just piss of the west, and get us to start being rude.

That's a good one. :D

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,435368,00.html

I may be crazy, but I think it's time to let the Germans and Japanese have militaries again.

No matter what side your on. This is undeniable basiclly

The US has had, has, and probably will have for a long time, the best Naval force in the world. With that being said. I'm unsure about the rest. First, consider that a massive Chinese force is on motorboats to a part of the US where we have no Navy ships ready to deploy. Could we get a response force fast enough....

Probably not.
China wins

Consider that we're going to fight back and send a massive force to Chinese shores. Would we have the upper hand in the invasion.

Yes, probably indefinatly. The US has First strike capabilites, not First-defense capabilities

What if Russia is with China and starts pouring troops to fight us in Tibet which we conveinantly ignored. Would we be able to get there. Probably not. It'd be unexpected and a reigion like Tibet would be overlooked by the US, who always focus on miniature targets instead of the much broader picture

Russia wins

Then the UK gets all Pissy that 2 countries are blowing up their allies, and they start sending arial raids to Russia. Yeah, again, Russia like America, due to massive size and massive amounts of freedom, have no first-defense capability, and would be helpless in a suprise attack.

Now, England, without sounding insulting, is tiny. And if Russia or some country starts hitting the beaches in Brighton. Somebody is going to be there in no time.

Then there's Isreal. Out of the countries listed, have been in the most wars. Now then, Isreal has definatly shown it can kick some ass, only if it starts attacking first. If Syria decided their going to start invading Isreal, Isreal is screwed. As seen in the 2006 Lebanon-Isreal war, the Isreali army will take long amounts of time building up attack forces and stregnthing defense points and whatever. They'd be helpless in an immediate attack

So see, it all depends on the the situation. What kind of war, who's fighting who. Etc.

I'm 16, and I know these things, no applause, no applause.

I may be crazy, but I think it's time to let the Germans and Japanese have militaries again.

Newsflash. They never stopped having them. West Germany definitely had an official army, same with East Germany.

Japan works it under the label 'Self-Defense' force. Althrough they are pretty close to dumping the label with the right-wing influence growing in their government.

Newsflash. They never stopped having them. West Germany definitely had an official army, same with East Germany.

Japan works it under the label 'Self-Defense' force. Althrough they are pretty close to dumping the label with the right-wing influence growing in their government.

I mean real militaries. With power-projection capabilities. Aircraft Carriers, strategic bombers, ICBM forces. The works.

No matter what side your on. This is undeniable basiclly

The US has had, has, and probably will have for a long time, the best Naval force in the world. With that being said. I'm unsure about the rest. First, consider that a massive Chinese force is on motorboats to a part of the US where we have no Navy ships ready to deploy. Could we get a response force fast enough....

Probably not.
China wins

Consider that we're going to fight back and send a massive force to Chinese shores. Would we have the upper hand in the invasion.

Yes, probably indefinatly. The US has First strike capabilites, not First-defense capabilities

What if Russia is with China and starts pouring troops to fight us in Tibet which we conveinantly ignored. Would we be able to get there. Probably not. It'd be unexpected and a reigion like Tibet would be overlooked by the US, who always focus on miniature targets instead of the much broader picture

Russia wins

Then the UK gets all Pissy that 2 countries are blowing up their allies, and they start sending arial raids to Russia. Yeah, again, Russia like America, due to massive size and massive amounts of freedom, have no first-defense capability, and would be helpless in a suprise attack.

Now, England, without sounding insulting, is tiny. And if Russia or some country starts hitting the beaches in Brighton. Somebody is going to be there in no time.

Then there's Isreal. Out of the countries listed, have been in the most wars. Now then, Isreal has definatly shown it can kick some ass, only if it starts attacking first. If Syria decided their going to start invading Isreal, Isreal is screwed. As seen in the 2006 Lebanon-Isreal war, the Isreali army will take long amounts of time building up attack forces and stregnthing defense points and whatever. They'd be helpless in an immediate attack

So see, it all depends on the the situation. What kind of war, who's fighting who. Etc.

I'm 16, and I know these things, no applause, no applause.

I don´t think anyone here was really contesting that. I believe the question was which nation has the most aggregate power, i.e., which nation is most likely to win in most places most of the time. Ofcourse geography would play a leading role in any specific event, but we´re not talking about a specific event.

I mean real militaries. With power-projection capabilities. Aircraft Carriers, strategic bombers, ICBM forces. The works.

Like the Viet Cong?

Like the Viet Cong?

The VC were annihilated after the Tet Offensive, and had ceased to function as a fighting force. From '69 and onwards the US was fighting NVA troops, nearly exclusively. The problem originated in North Vietnam, and this was because we had our hands tied in the region. If we pushed North, we risked involving the PRC in the war, like what happened in Korea. Instead we decided to try to fight the long, slow slog of attrition, and the US public didn't have the patience for it.

Remember, the RVN didn't collapse at the hands of VC or NLF forces, they collapsed at the hands of NVA Regulars.

No matter what side your on. This is undeniable basiclly

The US has had, has, and probably will have for a long time, the best Naval force in the world.
With that being said. I'm unsure about the rest. First, consider that a massive Chinese force is on motorboats to a part of the US where we have no Navy ships ready to deploy. Could we get a response force fast enough....

Probably not.
China wins

Of course we could. We'd spot them leaving by Japan, or going by Hawaii, or Alaska, and we have the whole pacific fleet thing over there too.
Plus, the Chinese dont have any transport ships anyway. Well, mabye a few. Not anything significant.

First, consider that a massive Chinese force is on motorboats to a part of the US where we have no Navy ships ready to deploy. Could we get a response force fast enough....


there is no such place

there is no such place

Great Lakes? I know there is some kind of training thang going on there, but are there any actually functional Naval vessels?

Great Lakes? I know there is some kind of training thang going on there, but are there any actually functional Naval vessels?

You would fail at geography then.

Great Lakes? I know there is some kind of training thang going on there, but are there any actually functional Naval vessels?
Yes, if you count the Coast Guard, which would be counted under the Navy in time of war(real {declared}war). If you don't count the coast guard, I am not sure if the Navy proper has any active vessels there, but the Chinese would have quite a time getting from China all the way around to the eastern seaboard of the United States and up the canals in motor boats without being totally destroyed. And then there is of course naval air power which can cover the bodies of water which do not have a vessel physically in it.

The only place that America is the big winner, is at getting troops at places the fastest.

So make my choice BOTH China and Russia.

Even if this is true (it isn't.) you fail to realize who important this is. In war, speed and timing are EXTREMELY important. They beat numbers and, at time, even fighting skill.
Reading Sun Tzu's The Art of War, is, in my opinion, almost required to having a military opinion that is at all informed.

You would fail at geography then.

Why? If Mehmed was able to roll his ships across the plains to Constantinople I think the Chinese should be capable of transporting some motorboats across Canada. What have I missed?

What have I missed?

waves, ice, polar bears, the Canadian military, NATO etc

Why? If Mehmed was able to roll his ships across the plains to Constantinople I think the Chinese should be capable of transporting some motorboats across Canada. What have I missed?

The continental divide?

Why? If Mehmed was able to roll his ships across the plains to Constantinople I think the Chinese should be capable of transporting some motorboats across Canada. What have I missed?

The fact that the U.S. would monstrously bitchslap Canada if they ever helped the Chinese pull a stunt like that.

Honestly, with nukes, it doesnt fucking matter anymore, theres never going to be a ww2 type situation again.

And if nukes suddenly dissapered, it would'nt fucking matter, because, the US niether one of those countries could succseful counquer one another, unless some ganged up on one. The US would get crused in Russia and or China and vise versa. UK or Isreal would probably hold out for a bit but eventually by overwhelemed by one of those and conquerd, however the conquerd peoples would then begin guerilla warfare...and the war wouldn't end. End of Story.

The continental divide?

Irrelevant: all that was initially specified was that "a massive Chinese force is on motorboats to a part of the US where we have no Navy ships ready to deploy".

The fact that the U.S. would monstrously bitchslap Canada if they ever helped the Chinese pull a stunt like that.

What was that saying about a war on two fronts?

Irrelevant: all that was initially specified was that "a massive Chinese force is on motorboats to a part of the US where we have no Navy ships ready to deploy".

But from where does that chinese force originate? It's implied in the statement that it is chinese and therefore comes from China. Thus it must either cross the continental divide or defeat the US atlantic fleet.

Irrelevant: all that was initially specified was that "a massive Chinese force is on motorboats to a part of the US where we have no Navy ships ready to deploy".

It'd be damn easy and you know it, they just put them in Mexico, and then BAM over the border they come. Along with even more mexicans for the hell of it. And as they overrun all of america, they simply say they're hear for work and idiot ameria would believe them, then its to late when they get to the white house.

The iraq situation is going badly due to the idiotic rumsfeld doctrine. The rumsfeld doctrine calls for a smaller more mobile force to invade and overrun the enemy using the US's technological power to win. This is all fine and dandy for a convential war. Which it was for the first few weeks, which the USA easily won and so they should have. What has happened in the years since is insurgents blowing up stuff. This is the Rumsfeld doctrines weak point. It is appropriate while the war was at the convential stage.

In the occupation stage all the technology in the world will do you no good. You need manpower to show strength, this cannot happen with a force of 140,000. A lot more was needed from day 1 and we'd have been home by know.

And now, for the question. The United states army has the far superior technology, best navy and best air force in the world. Yes, China has superior manpower, that happens when the population is 4 times larger than the american population. But in a hypothetical war, the goal was to invade and conquer the opposing country the USA would win.

Firstly, China would never be able to get their soldiers to United states territory because their is a big ocean in between. And the United states superior navy and air force would sink the PLA before the fleet left the horizon. (That's where the ability of force projection, which the USA has more then any other nation comes in handy)

The iraq situation is going badly due to the idiotic rumsfeld doctrine. The rumsfeld doctrine calls for a smaller more mobile force to invade and overrun the enemy using the US's technological power to win. This is all fine and dandy for a convential war. Which it was for the first few weeks, which the USA easily won and so they should have. What has happened in the years since is insurgents blowing up stuff. This is the Rumsfeld doctrines weak point. It is appropriate while the war was at the convential stage.

In the occupation stage all the technology in the world will do you no good. You need manpower to show strength, this cannot happen with a force of 140,000. A lot more was needed from day 1 and we'd have been home by know.

And now, for the question. The United states army has the far superior technology, best navy and best air force in the world. Yes, China has superior manpower, that happens when the population is 4 times larger than the american population. But in a hypothetical war, the goal was to invade and conquer the opposing country the USA would win.

Firstly, China would never be able to get their soldiers to United states territory because their is a big ocean in between. And the United states superior navy and air force would sink the PLA before the fleet left the horizon. (That's where the ability of force projection, which the USA has more then any other nation comes in handy)


Yeah, however there is no way in hell the USA could ever conquer and control all of China. There isn't a single nation on earth, infact no coalition of any nations, save for maybe the entire world that could, unless for some fucked up reason the entire population of China would support the invasion, not bloody likley, and if you think the war in Iraq is expesive, shit the US would go bankrupt in less than 3 years trying to stabilize that nation, if somehow they did conventionally win the war against the PLA, which wouldn't happen to begin with. The Chinese can field and army of 22million, the US can't do that, and won't do that, they don't even needs guns, they could just use spears and overrun every US position. And the PLA's technology is far beyond what westerners think it is, is closer to US early 90's military type technology these days.

What was that saying about a war on two fronts?

Nonono, we wouldn't fight them. We would just bitchslap them. 32,600,000 Americans would cross the boarder, find a random Canadian, and bitchslap them 3 times.

Forehand-Backhand-Forehand.

...
But in a hypothetical war, the goal was to invade and conquer the opposing country the USA would win.

Could the USA conquer China militarily? I don't think so.
Could China conquer the USA militarily? I don't think so either.
Both sides found their counterparts to be almost invincible to be conquered alone.

Even with superior technology and weapons of mass destruction (Agent Orange chemical weapons), the US forces were still beaten out from Vietnam. If the US failed to conquer Vietnam, how could the US conquer China?

US would take their conventional military down.

PLA lack any kind of top-tier capability while the US has the world's second-best tank (losing out to the Challenger, basically because the Challenger has better armour and repair-on-site capability) and the best first-strike capability BAR NONE.

Kinda helped by the fact they're about the only people with strategic bombers not hungover from the 50's...

The Chinese have no answer to the B-2 (or I suspect the B-1 either) which could cheerily take out their ground installations allowing USN strike aircraft free reign (barring MANPADS).

But once the kind of war where 'full-spectrum-dominance' is king ends and insurgency begins, the US will be out on it's arse within a year or two simply because, as it has always been, any occupation which does not benefit greatly or cow utterly the conquered populace will fail.

I can't reply till this damned ambien wears off. back in 30

okay. US V/ Navy, by department

war production--badly close here. We have lots of capability but the build time of our newest wepons is slow. We'll be fighting with what we have in th hopes that we can keep them alive unti our production can gear up.

Navy is the first thing we will make contact over. Their navy is large in the sense that a milliom junks is a lot of boats. But their NAVY is small, in the sense that it is old, slow, coast bound, and exuiped with crap from the early seventies and not much better in general. So we can expect to own the seas. This means shipping will usually survive. Equipment, troops, and units can expect to fight as expected and as needed.

AIntel is the first force multiplier we;ll cranck ip. It's cranked up today, always stays up. But the guys with monacles glued to their eyes will go overtime looking at ways to break thier forces infrastructure and make it difficult for them to move, communicate, or shoot effectively. OUrs is better than tehre is so we will win this fight as well.

Army forces should make contact against enemy forces who have bee weakened by layered attacks on their infrastructure and thier fighting abilities will be extremely atrited. If we atytack them on Mainland CHina, they will own us simply by handing each guy a rifle, three grenades, a box of MG ammo, and a couple of mines, and even if he has to walk across the continent, or ride burnt out trains that run badly and inadiguitely, their army will still eat us to pieces.

We are better equiped than they, and faster, and better armored, with guns taht are ten times as good as their. We have probably pound for pound the bbest army at modern land wars there has ever been. But the CHinse will do What Joe STalin did: give every old lady a rake and a hoe and get them digging. Their husbands get shovels and dig even more. The kids all get drafter, male or female, their army will explode in our faces, and no matter how many we shoot, run over, or impregnate, they will wipe our entire land force (I include every already deployed unit which we wouldrecall for thius war)

Every swinging dick we have will be dead there in six months. THey just have too many warm bodies to throw at us.



Look at the size of what we have in our army, then look at theirs. We'd have to kill like a hundred for every one of us that died. NEver happen without carpet bombing simply to wipe the country out. And then they would nuke us.
that is before they start throwing nukes at their own cities to take us out.

...the US has the world's second-best tank (losing out to the Challenger, basically because the Challenger has better armour and repair-on-site capability)...
Oh, don't start that debate. There's plenty of first-class tanks out there (Leo II? Leclerc? Type 90? Ariete?), and it depends on a lot of luck, good recon and intelligence work and whatever crew happens to be sitting in it on the day.

Oh, and then there's the new Korean thing. "Black Panther" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XK2). Wins in the name sakes, if you ask me.

The greatest military in the world? That would be me with a stick which has a dog turd on the end. :p

Russia has the most nukes most of them won't take off and such but do they really need to?

As for influence I’d say China its success story and position as the new Communist flag bearer has earned it allot of support in South America, Africa, the middle east and many former soviet influenced areas of the globe (though it is by no means as influential as the USSR used to be)

Though if we count commonwealth and E.U support Britain still puts the rest of the world to shame:)

That's a good one. :D

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,435368,00.html

That seems to be a common complaint (poorly equipped to do the mission) for everyones armies except maybe the US.

It's the US. It is that simple. Most money and a very large highly trained military equiped with the latest development in weapons technology.

But it has retarded tactics. As veitnam, Iraq, and afganistan clearly show.
And Russia is so out of date.
I'd say China.

I'd say China.

which doesn't have retarded tactics? also I think you mean strategy

I don´t think anyone here was really contesting that. I believe the question was which nation has the most aggregate power, i.e., which nation is most likely to win in most places most of the time. Ofcourse geography would play a leading role in any specific event, but we´re not talking about a specific event.

I'm saying no nation could win in 'most situations' and even the US, China, UK, Isreal, and Russia have severe dissadvantages that balance out the advantages between all of them

If by some allmighty force of god those nations were to all go to war, with eachother[free for all?], they'd probably just obliterate eachother. And the winner would be decided by how many people can climb out of the rubble.

Consider this, in China there are men marching down the street, military check points, and AA guns planted everywhere.

When's the last time you saw an AA gun in the middle of New York ready to shoot down any sudden unpredictable attack? Maybe on our bases, but those are all scattered.

When's the last time you saw an AA gun in the middle of New York ready to shoot down any sudden unpredictable attack? Maybe on our bases, but those are all scattered.

The US always has fighters on CAP. Fighters could be over New York, IIRC, in 4 minutes seince 9/11. Then we'd launch a crapload more. Also, how are the planes going to be launched? China has one *crappy* carrier and about 50 carrier based planes. The carrier is used only for training purposes, as it pretty much sucks. How is that carrier going to get anywhere near the US?

Oh, don't start that debate. There's plenty of first-class tanks out there (Leo II? Leclerc? Type 90? Ariete?), and it depends on a lot of luck, good recon and intelligence work and whatever crew happens to be sitting in it on the day.

Oh, and then there's the new Korean thing. "Black Panther" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XK2). Wins in the name sakes, if you ask me.

Good point More a little point of patriotism than an actual 'Challenger ownz j00 all' because it's a dan close call.

Even with superior technology and weapons of mass destruction (Agent Orange chemical weapons), the US forces were still beaten out from Vietnam. If the US failed to conquer Vietnam, how could the US conquer China?

We weren't "beaten out from Vietnam." A treaty was signed with the North, and then when they violated it a year later we did nothing to stop them. Hardly a crushing defeat.

Depends if u split the services up, Ie Uk airforce a lot better trained and more reliable then the US it moves so kill it airforce, Dutch Commandos are proberbly one of the best around, Israel has the most combat experianced and efficiant for size military, China has the weight of numbers, it depends on what your judging the criteria on,

and the rolls royce were what made the Mustang good :p, pratt and whitley engines suck and screak like a bitch

Depends if u split the services up, Ie Uk airforce a lot better trained and more reliable then the US it moves so kill it airforce, Dutch Commandos are proberbly one of the best around, Israel has the most combat experianced and efficiant for size military, China has the weight of numbers, it depends on what your judging the criteria on,

and the rolls royce were what made the Mustang good :p, pratt and whitley engines suck and screak like a bitch

The RAF isn't a lot better trained, they may have slight lead on the USAF though. What do you mean more reliable? Also, the main A2A of the RAf is the Tornado F3. In 2010, that will change, but for now it's the tornado, which doesnt stand a chance agaisnt an F-15, no matter how good the pilot is.

Dutch are one of the best around, probably not the best. Though it's hard to compare. For example, the SEALs are probalby a little better than the SBS, but the SAS is probably a little better than Delta.

Numbers =\= victory.

Depends if u split the services up, Ie Uk airforce a lot better trained and more reliable then the US it moves so kill it airforce, Dutch Commandos are proberbly one of the best around, Israel has the most combat experianced and efficiant for size military, China has the weight of numbers, it depends on what your judging the criteria on,

and the rolls royce were what made the Mustang good :p, pratt and whitley engines suck and screak like a bitch

Actually, what made the P-51 great were the pilots that flew it.

But a great design didn't hurt.

EDIT: Also, the P-51 used an Allison engine, not a P&W.

And Russia is so out of date.


I won't say that the only nuclear power who's got bisonic bombers (Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-22M Backfire) is out of date... look at the Topol-M intercontinental ballistic/CRUISE missile.

How many bisonic bombers the US have? None! They scrapped the Hustler, then failed the Valkyrie and downgraded the B-1, and they scrapped the Aardvark to boot. Pfui. And no supersonic cruise missiles at all! The US top militaries really wasted the taxpayer's money.

I won't say that the only nuclear power who's got bisonic bombers (Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-22M Backfire) is out of date... look at the Topol-M intercontinental ballistic/CRUISE missile.

How many bisonic bombers the US have? None! They scrapped the Hustler, then failed the Valkyrie and downgraded the B-1, and they scrapped the Aardvark to boot. Pfui. And no supersonic cruise missiles at all! The US top militaries really wasted the taxpayer's money.

No, I'm pretty sure the Valkyrie was never put in service because:

A. By the time it was developed, Soviet SAM sites could take them down regardless of their speed.
B. The fuel was horribly expensive and burned very quickly.

I also don't think the rest of you're statements are all that true either...

That seems to be a common complaint (poorly equipped to do the mission) for everyones armies except maybe the US.
It even is in the States. But that's not the point...it's systemic in the German Army.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,695612,00.jpg

Politicians these days are forced to take the military responsibilities of a medium-sized power, and German troops are all over the place. But at the same time with a big budget deficit, fairly high unemployment and the German scepticism of all things military, handing the Bundeswehr money isn't going to be winning you votes.

This is a good article about the whole issue. Anyone who's even remotely interested will enjoy it.
"The Germans Have to Learn How to Kill" (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,449479,00.html)

I won't say that the only nuclear power who's got bisonic bombers (Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-22M Backfire) is out of date... look at the Topol-M intercontinental ballistic/CRUISE missile.

How many bisonic bombers the US have? None! They scrapped the Hustler, then failed the Valkyrie and downgraded the B-1, and they scrapped the Aardvark to boot. Pfui. And no supersonic cruise missiles at all! The US top militaries really wasted the taxpayer's money.

We don't need bisonic bombers. Your Tu-22 got blown out of the sky by a tomcat. The Tu-160 is a fast B-1B. And, why do we need supersonic cruise missles?

We have stealth cruise missiles.

And, why do we need supersonic cruise missles?
I'm thinking mainly ships. The Russians have had supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles for many years now, the US is still stuck with the Harpoon.

Though the Tomahawk will be fine for a while yet, I think, as long as they keep upgrading the electronics.

We have stealth cruise missiles.
Which one?

Which one?

The AGM-129. It's the airborne nuclear weapons delivery system.

The AGM-129. It's the airborne nuclear weapons delivery system.
Neat, though I don't really see the need. Nuclear weapons only make sense in the context of total nuclear war, and then ICBMs are surely better than cruise missiles.

Neat, though I don't really see the need. Nuclear weapons only make sense in the context of total nuclear war, and then ICBMs are surely better than cruise missiles.

We're America; we're allowed to have useless, but neato, weapons.

Like space marines.

Nuclear weapons only make sense in the context of total nuclear war, and then ICBMs are surely better than cruise missiles.

Surely received opinion is that nuclear weapons only make sense when there isn't a nuclear war: was that not what the whole MAD malarky was about?

Neat, though I don't really see the need. Nuclear weapons only make sense in the context of total nuclear war, and then ICBMs are surely better than cruise missiles.

Near impossible to shoot down (US has a missle defense shield for ICBMs), and part of the nuclear triad. So if they find our subs and silos, we still have ALCMs.

Surely received opinion is that nuclear weapons only make sense when there isn't a nuclear war: was that not what the whole MAD malarky was about?
Yeah, but smaller warheads and weapons like this make little sense when you already have the ICBMs.

It's like tactical nukes. They only make sense if you're willing to cop the retaliation afterwards. And generally you aren't.

Near impossible to shoot down (US has a missle defense shield for ICBMs), and part of the nuclear triad. So if they find our subs and silos, we still have ALCMs.
The US cannot shoot ICBMs just yet, and it will never be able to down actual modern ones, currently the Topol-M.

Designing a missile to penetrate is easier than designing the counter-system, so the missiles will always stay a step ahead, as long as both sides spend roughly the same amount of effort. The only way the US could be safe from ICBMs would be if everyone else just stopped bothering or couldn't pay for it, and with the rise of China and consolidation of Putin's Russia, it's more likely to be the opposite.

The PLA is designed to subdue its population, it is big on numbers, that scare the population from revolting. Most people in the western world think the Chinese love their communist way of life.
Sure some do, the ones that benefit from it. But the vast majority if they had an option would overthrow the government, and commence democratic elections. That would have happened in Tiananmen Square if the protesters did'nt get slaughtered by the PLA.
In a US invasion of China the population would be more supportive then you think. If the US Army, Navy and Air Force was'nt busy elsewhere they could invade, they would win. If they didn't dismantle what's left of the PLA (which was one of the mistakes made in Iraq), quickly introduced democratic election, and left within a few months leaving China with a democraticlly elected government it would be succesful...sure it would mean China would step as the world's largest and most powerful economy within a few decades which would make the western world uncomfortable...but hey, all in the name of democracy?

If the European Union ever really gets it together and forms a better coordinated defense pact, it will probably be stronger than everyone else.

The US cannot shoot ICBMs just yet, and it will never be able to down actual modern ones, currently the Topol-M.


We can shoot down the Chinese and NK ones. The most sucessful has been the AEGIS, with stations from alaska to california (11 i think), and it has been sucessful 5 out of 8 times in test. If the warhead is manuverable (like many of Russia's), we cant shoot it down, but the the Chinese and NK dont have them as far as I know.

If the European Union ever really gets it together and forms a better coordinated defense pact, it will probably be stronger than everyone else.

I doubt they are anywhere close to a pact like that. There are many more squabbles that must be adressed before they would consider such a military union.

For the time being, the US is strongest individual army. To say that means they can conquer any individual territory is nonsense though. Modern military technology is best at crushing, subdueing is something the US has never been that good at.

We can shoot down the Chinese and NK ones. The most sucessful has been the AEGIS, with stations from alaska to california (11 i think), and it has been sucessful 5 out of 8 times in test. If the warhead is manuverable (like many of Russia's), we cant shoot it down, but the the Chinese and NK dont have them as far as I know.
Testing isn't the same as real conditions though. It's much easier to shoot the thing down if you know it's gonna be launched from a certain place in twenty minutes.

Wiki says that the only part actually operational (though by no means finished) part of the US defense system is the GMD. As you said, it's meant to take down single, relatively unsophisticated missiles; they only have a dozen or so interceptors alltogether.

The sea-based system is not yet operational. They're still doing tests and converting ships.

Which is all very nice if one or two North Korean missiles manage to make it that far without falling into the sea by themselves - but not enough to defend against a full nuclear retaliation, not even by China (and you can't trust the Chinese with what they have anyways, they're pretty good at keeping stuff secret - and all that extra spending that's unaccounted for has got to go somewhere).

That being said, the Chinese aren't after being a Russia-style nuclear hyperpower anyways. They're plenty happy with gaining diplomatic and economic influence, supported by a military that can defend them against attack and be used as a tool for diplomacy in situations that are in China's interest.

some countries like Costa Rica do not have military! Yay for keeping things peaceful.