NationStates Jolt Archive

After the post by Nilpnt about India vs Pakistan It got me thinking who would win in a war between the USA, Russia, China or the British Common wealth (regardless of the fact that it is a non military organisation)

I think you've got say the common wealth cos we got India, Britain and Canada
oh and Australia

After the post by Nilpnt about India vs Pakistan It got me thinking who would win in a war between the USA, Russia, China or the British Common wealth (regardless of the fact that it is a non military organisation)

I think you've got say the common wealth cos we got India, Britain and Canada
oh and Australia

You mean a four-way free-for-all type war, or are there sides?

All on all Cos in this scenario britain has pissed off America it can be nuclear or non nuclear aswell

I would, because I'd move to New Zealand and therefore live.

New Zealand is commonwealth muppet

All on all Cos in this scenario britain has pissed off America it can be nuclear or non nuclear aswell

Well, if Britain pissed off America, it would go one of two ways:

China sides with Britain, as does Russia. Against the three powers, the US would begin to lose, and go nuclear. Nuclear war - everyone loses.

China sides with the US, so does Russia. Against the three powers, Britain is ground into dust, but goes nuclear, and everyone loses less than the first scenario.

Assuming the second scenario, it would play out as follows:

Russia and the US would turn on China in their weak point and try to conquer them. China has the world's largest air force, but against the US and Russia combined, it would *probably* fall, hard to say.

The US will then see what massive oil reserves are available, and will turn on Russia and conquer them.

The commonwealth is not jst Britain remember we got india too and Canada for those pesky Americans lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Commonwealth_of_Nations.png

map of commonwealth

The commonwealth is not jst Britain remember we got india too and Canada for those pesky Americans lol

I'm aware, but Canada is about as useful in a war as a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest.

India, that's another story, but still the combined forces of US, Russia, and China would wipe them out.

The British Commonwealth would win.

Containing 53 nations, including Britain, Canada, Australia and India. Whom are historically good fighters. Several Commonwealth nations such as Australia and Canada alreayd provide troop support for the UK. Covering 21% of the globe means it has the land and massive countries such as India provide the man power. 16% of the worlds economy is Commonwealth based. Meaning it would have the money too fight. British troops are re known for their exceptional training and good equipment, with outstanding courage and special forces. Do not be fooled by the small size of their military. Typically what is considered Elite elsewhere is considered as standard in the British army. The commonwealth, due to the UK is nuclear capable. And if Israel's application to join is granted, this would make it even more nuclear capable.

The Commonwealth is a force to be reckoned with.

I'm aware, but Canada is about as useful in a war as a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest.

Tell that to those who served with the UK before the US join the war.

Tell that to the Canadians that died at Dieppe in 1942 and fought in Falaise in 1944.

I think you've got say the Commonwealth cos we got India, Britain and Canada, and Australia

You're assuming all the Commonwealth Nations would actually fight together, though. Each of them have their own independant values that would/would not cause them to be involved in this war.

Canada won't be involved, as historically Canada has seen itself as a mediator between US and England. Also, what Canadian military? ;) This generation is so dependant on the US for defense now, even with the current upgrades in military.

Australia's very independent, and won't say how high when britain says jump.

Not sure about India, i'm pretty sure they already have enough on their plate politically.

Tell that to those who served with the UK before the US join the war.

Tell that to the Canadians that died at Dieppe in 1942 and fought in Falaise in 1944.

I would, but that generation is pretty much dead, if not from the battles, from old age.

EDIT: http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/canadian_navy.jpg

You're assuming all the Commonwealth Nations would actually fight together, though. Each of them have their own independant values that would/would not cause them to be involved in this war.

Canada won't be involved, as historically Canada has seen itself as a mediator between US and England.

Australia's very independent, and won't say how high when Britain says jump.

Not sure about India, i'm pretty sure they already have enough on their plate politically.

Canadian Troops are serving with UK troops in Afghanistan as we speak.

Australians are serving with UK troops in Iraq as we speak.

India, you are correct there, they do have alot of issues and might not help the Commonwealth on a great scale at this present moment in time. But they are loyal to it and have fought for the Commonwealth before.

The Common Welth for reasons stated above.

Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan to avoid iraq...under the request of NATO, as were UK troops.

For this situation the commonwealth is united

It may just be my false opinion, but I don't think there can be an Anglo-American war any time soon. Britain acts much like a USA puppet, if not it's probably its most loyal ally. At least that was true in Blur's era, I don't know about now

Well if this is a sci-fi scenario.

But in the US versus UK scenario, UK looses.

The commonwealth is an extremely loose "formation", even E.U. is tighter.

In this impossible situation you've set up, the Commonwealth would win. In reality, a four-way brawl would bring down Britain first.

In this impossible situation you've set up, the Commonwealth would win. In reality, a four-way brawl would bring down Britain first.

This is true, but it would be alot closer than you might think.

The UK has a powerful military, good equipment, excellent training, very good pilots. It may not be the biggest military, but it is certainly one of the best trained, best equipped and very well known and respected.

In a situation like this, the UK would CERTAINLY be on the defensive. It would be hard for large amounts of enemy troops to get to the UK without going through France and Germany, both of which would be likely to deny access due to their close relationship with the UK. Any attempt to force access would have terrible consequences as both Germany and France are powerful. once serving alongside the UK you have a very hard force to beat.

This leaves nuclear war. Well the UK as bast array of nuclear weapons, and the appropriate countermeasures just like the USA and Russia.

As the UK is nuclear capable, and its positioning, plus its strong allies in Europe, it could not be defeated as easily as people think. The country could quite easily hold off a seaborne invasion from one of the countries in question as they are far away and have no way to organise forces adequately for the task in hand except at sea. Which would hinder an assault.

Wow, this is quite embarassing from the British NSGers. The empire died, get over it.

all the nations lose as the global economy takes a turn for the worse though Russia would make a fortune selling itself to the highest bidder

well of course Zimbabwe may side with the commonwealth giving us the mighty power of Mugabe to win victory!

good equipment

if thats what you think then my computer is a flying time machine :p

The UK has a powerful military, good equipment, excellent training, very good pilots. It may not be the biggest military, but it is certainly one of the best trained, best equipped and very well known and respected.

currently all we have is a high tech western European army that is all.

In a situation like this, the UK would CERTAINLY be on the defensive.

and be starved to death in about 6 weeks

Wow, this is quite embarassing from the British NSGers. The empire died, get over it.

nevah! the commonwealth is empire under a snazzy disguise as a useless collection of powers united only in not being arsed to leave

It would be hard for large amounts of enemy troops to get to the UK without going through France and Germany, both of which would be likely to deny access due to their close relationship with the UK. Any attempt to force access would have terrible consequences as both Germany and France are powerful. once serving alongside the UK you have a very hard force to beat.


Try and Atlantic Invasion? Also, the British and French and Germans are still even today not seeing eye to eye. With the UK playing both sides (More on the American side), the French going through political upheval (the revolution never seemed to stop for them :p), and the German political and economic machine, such an alliance is unlikely, but not compleatly impossilbe. Relations especialy with the British and France over the course of history have been unstable, with both of them nuclear powers, I am supprised if they don't kill each other first.

I wouldn't be supprised if the British and French start blowing each other up. The entire relation between the two powers has been very shaky over history, and both are nuclear.....sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Even with the E.U. binding them together.

The British Commonwealth is an economic, not military alliance... Nations like Australia and India wouldn't go with Britain simply because of their alliance through the BC. n fact, Australia has strong ties with the US, and India would be a serious discussion as well, as they maintain relations with all four of the nations in question. Most likely, assuming that each nation can call in allies, the US would win simply on grounds of number of allies (see Rio Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Pact) and NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO).) Of course, the question of NATO comes up, but assuming a war between UK and US, it would probably represent a split. Russia and China are allied together as well (see here (http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1459.cfm)), so you could see them fighting together. All in all, the likelihood that a four-way war would happen is about zero- US and UK are too close, China needs the US, and the resulting war if they did all fight would cause nuclear devastation.

The Commonwealth of Nations is not a military alliance.

the Philippines would pwn y'all. :D

I wouldn't be supprised if the British and French start blowing each other up. The entire relation between the two powers has been very shaky over history

pfft Germany has kept Britain and France together for over 100 years now and considering preceding WWII a French offer was made for a union of the two I seem to think things are rather rosy to say the least

seriously what are you getting this from?

Russia and China are allied together as well (see here (http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1459.cfm))

considering Russia's yellow peril I'd say no

so you could see them fighting together. All in all, the likelihood that a four-way war would happen is about zero

its a hypothetical scenario...

Wow, this is quite embarassing from the British NSGers. The empire died, get over it.

My thoughts exactly. This is rather cringe worthy.

This scenario fails...

My thoughts exactly. This is rather cringe worthy.

well we can hardly be the only ethnic group in history to not have something to be embarrassed about

The US. Unless China joins in, or we're occupying a country *Cough* Iraq *Cough* we're able to win almost anything. Well, if most of Europe joined in too, then we'd lose also, but we're still one of the most powerful countries on this planet. If it goes Nuclear, we all lose :(.

Nukes are launched, everybody dies.

The British Commonwealth would win.

Containing 53 nations, including Britain, Canada, Australia and India. Whom are historically good fighters. Several Commonwealth nations such as Australia and Canada alreayd provide troop support for the UK. Covering 21% of the globe means it has the land and massive countries such as India provide the man power. 16% of the worlds economy is Commonwealth based. Meaning it would have the money too fight. British troops are re known for their exceptional training and good equipment, with outstanding courage and special forces. Do not be fooled by the small size of their military. Typically what is considered Elite elsewhere is considered as standard in the British army. The commonwealth, due to the UK is nuclear capable. And if Israel's application to join is granted, this would make it even more nuclear capable.

The Commonwealth is a force to be reckoned with.

Canada and Australia are basically useless. The RAF might last 2 days, Brits are toast after that. Conventional war no occupation, Commonwealth = targets.

Can i just add that this does not concern the E.U and for reasons of this question the commonwealth is a united military force

The RAF is the finest air force in the world by the way

I dont think America can win it just hasnt go the number cmon 1.1 billion in India

The RAF is the finest air force in the world by the way

I disagree. The Israeli air force is the finest air force in the world. The Chinese air force is the largest.

Britian is historically got a strong air force and excellently trained pilots and awsome air crat though i will admit the F20 raptor is slightly superior to the Euro fighter

This isn't 1940. The USAF, USN has better gear, more training, and a lot more pilots. India's 1.1 billion might count if the warring factions are throwing mud clods at each other. Of course they still couldn't transport the clod throwers anywhere.

Nukes are launched, everybody dies.

+1000000000000000000000000000000000

India has a powerful army

LOL They can stand there getting bombed by carrier air groups.
These threads are always funny in a sad way. Like some1 posted earlier, the empire died long ago.

the empire was dismantled benignly as a way to say thankyou for help in the war

Again. Anybody who thinks either side will win doesn't understand what happens in a nuclear war.

Again. Anybody who thinks either side will win doesn't understand what happens in a nuclear war.

A winter wonderland, that's what.

It depends how the diplomatic channels work out. I'd say whichever way, the British are fucked, because even assuming that all, most, or even some of the Commonwealth cares to join them (which is dubious at best), the best they can get is the assistance of a few third world African nations and sparsely populated Canada and Australia. The defense of the Commonwealth would probably end up being more of a liability than an advantage. Russia and the US would both end up in dire straits, but Russia can protect itself with the vast remoteness of Siberia and the US with the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. China is the only country I can see doing well in this war.

Provided that the war doesn't go nuclear, of course.

It depends how the diplomatic channels work out. I'd say whichever way, the British are fucked, because even assuming that all, most, or even some of the Commonwealth cares to join them (which is dubious at best), the best they can get is the assistance of a few third world African nations and sparsely populated Canada and Australia. The defense of the Commonwealth would probably end up being more of a liability than an advantage. Russia and the US would both end up in dire straits, but Russia can protect itself with the vast remoteness of Siberia and the US with the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. China is the only country I can see doing well in this war.

Provided that the war doesn't go nuclear, of course.

India too and for these purposes plz read that the common wealth is a united military force

A winter wonderland, that's what.

Well, that'll solve global warming, I suppose! :D

Well, that'll solve global warming, I suppose! :D

...Yes. Let's say that.

India too and for these purposes plz read that the common wealth is a united military force

I have never heard the Commonwealth described as a "united military force" and, skimming through wikipedia, didn't find any reference to defense treaties. I did find this, however

In recent decades there has been a mutual decline of interest in maintaining active intra-Commonwealth relations, and the organisation's direct political and economic importance has declined. Realist critics have argued that in the 21st century the organisation is an inherently arbitrary alliance with members that are united only through a historical accident of British colonialism. They argue that the organisation lacks a balanced membership, and point out that it is very unusual for any international organisation to exclude highly important regions of the world such as most of Western Europe and South America from membership. Indeed, many Commonwealth members look increasingly to regional partners, non-Commonwealth as well as Commonwealth, to form their most important alliances.

Even if the Commonwealth were a military alliance, as you said, look whose in it. The only members that have any military value are Britain, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, and India. India and Pakistan invariably won't enter the war on the same sides, if they choose to enter at all (remember that all members of the Commonwealth are sovereign states). Britain, Canada, and Australia combined have a total of 100 million people, which is still smaller than Russia and gives them a 13:1 ratio against China. The British are the definite losers of this senario, assuming the war stays conventional.

Depends on the theater. Invading Russia is a bad idea. Russia invading anyone else? Not so hot. Land war against China is a bad idea. But I imagine that if China tried to do anything but mass infantry the US could take them (F22s for the win). China against Russia...No one wins that one. Dunno about Britain.

Also, Wot wot, cheerio, let's ohl 'ave a cup 'o tea and ohl that, yeah? And then we'll kill you all!

plz ur missing the point All nations in the commonwealth are working together for the purposes of this scenario regardless of current political situations

I'm aware, but Canada is about as useful in a war as a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest.
I've personally yet to recall Canadian ground-attack aircraft firing on US troops at all. Not so the other way 'round.

And aye, the commonwealth would basically win. Because us and the Chinese and Russians are kindred spirits. And the Yanks are not.

The commonwealth is currently a strictly economic force but for the purpose of this argument it has a joint military

oh and nice burn Yootopia

I've personally yet to recall Canadian ground-attack aircraft firing on US troops at all. Not so the other way 'round.

And aye, the commonwealth would basically win. Because us and the Chinese and Russians are kindred spirits. And the Yanks are not.

Well, according to the scenario, it's a 4-way free-for-all, so the Russians and the Chinese are not on your side.

Regardless, this would only end in thermonuclear war, and nobody wins.

I've personally yet to recall Canadian ground-attack aircraft firing on US troops at all. Not so the other way 'round.

And aye, the commonwealth would basically win. Because us and the Chinese and Russians are kindred spirits. And the Yanks are not.

That's because the yanks know all about our neferious plot to use the mighty Commonwealth to exact a regime change on them and are thinning out our ranks.

Quick, to MI5. We must root out the spy.

Britian is historically got a strong air force and excellently trained pilots and awsome air crat though i will admit the F20 raptor is slightly superior to the Euro fighter
F-22, and you're comparing a TVR to a Lambo with your F-22 to Eurofighter lark.

The Eurofighter is, at the moment, little more than a very, very good air superiority fighter, which is also faster and a wee bit more agile than the F-22. We've refitted a few to carry Brimstone, but they don't come with a proper ground-attack suite (yet, IIRC that comes in the next block).

The F-22 can do a bit more in terms of ground attack, and is quite a considerable amount stealthier, but it's slower and has a lower payload.

the empire was dismantled benignly as a way to say thankyou for help in the war

Suuuuuure.

Well, according to the scenario, it's a 4-way free-for-all, so the Russians and the Chinese are not on your side.
Clearly you underestimate the power of the Diplomatic Corps :D

And aye, the commonwealth would basically win. Because us and the Chinese and Russians are kindred spirits.



Quite. They're colonial empires who constantly tell everyone they're doing them a favour too.

Clearly you underestimate the power of the Diplomatic Corps :D

You underestimate the power of the CIA. We'll assassinate all the world's leaders and put people in their places that look and talk just like them, and then make the whole world turn on the people we don't like and destroy them.

*hums the theme to Wild Wild West*

You underestimate the power of the CIA. We'll assassinate all the world's leaders and put people in their places that look and talk just like them, and then make the whole world turn on the people we don't like and destroy them.

*hums the theme to Wild Wild West*

Wait, didn't you already do that with Tony Blair?

Wait, didn't you already do that with Tony Blair?

Shhh.

The commonwealth is currently a strictly economic force but for the purpose of this argument it has a joint military

What makes you think it will change? What does anyone have to gain by fighting Britain's war for them?

What makes you think it will change? What does anyone have to gain by fighting Britain's war for them?

Your name is very appropiate. The commonwealth is something brought up by Britons who can't accept that the empire is gone and Britain is no longer a world power. See also: The Blessed Chris.

It is most crucially used as context for a couple of weeks of sports every few years.

I disagree. The Israeli air force is the finest air force in the world. The Chinese air force is the largest.

Huh?

The USAF is the largest, most technologically advanced air force in the world, with about 5,778 manned aircraft in service (4,093 USAF; 1,289 Air National Guard; and 396 Air Force Reserve); approximately 156 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles, 2130 Air-Launched Cruise Missiles, and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles; and as of 30 September 2007, had 328,600 personnel on active duty, 117,497 in the Selected and Individual Ready Reserves, and 106,700 in the Air National Guard. In addition, the Air Force employs 168,900 civilian personnel including indirect hire of foreign nationals.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force)

The People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) is the aviation branch of the People's Liberation Army, the military of the People's Republic of China. It currently consists of approximately 250,000 personnel and 2,300 combat aircraft, making the PLAAF the largest air force in Asia and the third largest in the world behind the Russian air force, and the United States Air Force.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Air_Force)

Huh?


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force)


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Air_Force)

Huh. I thought the Chinese had something like 6,000 planes. I was apparently mistaken.

Your name is very appropiate. The commonwealth is something brought up by Britons who can't accept that the empire is gone and Britain is no longer a world power. See also: The Blessed Chris.

It is most crucially used as context for a couple of weeks of sports every few years.

Yes, it's always seemed that way to me. I never really hear of the Commonwealth doing anything.

The commonwealth's inclusion in this is a bit of a joke. Those who argue the EU would never act together in a military situation can't say the commonwealth would, far from it indeed. Politically the commonwealth nations have very little in common. Most states are just in it for the economic benefits of free trade with britain etc., NZ, AUS and Canada will go the second Elizabeth dies, or sooner.

The EU should be there rather than the commonwealth, be realistic, the british empire, like the french or german is long and dead and it's only legacy is the messes its left between countries like india and pakistan, and the commonwealth, just like the french left their mess in algeria 40 years ago, and have their community.

Tardigrades. Because those're the only goddamn thing that're gonna survive.

Russia hate's America and dislike's Britain as we’re in the EU (which is converting former SU states into Democratic, well off nations), yet they always side with China on forgine policy these days.

UK and USA trade a lot with each other (so a war would be unprofitable, which is all we care about), USA is afraid of anything communist, so they would attack china and Russia.

Even though the commonwealth has no power over member states military, hypothetically if that changed and the Queen became Empress then the common wealth would fight against Britain enemies.
In this case of empiricism, the UK would join forces with the strongest side, which would be the USA.

When it comes to the fighting the commonwealth-USA would have the advantage as if you look at the powers here you have the-

Russians whose armed forces are now under funded, outdated, under trained and over stretched. Russia hasn’t seen war in years, when the soviet union collapsed they lost their power, their planes are old and to-few and as Russia is so big, it has to divide its power even more to protect its borders.
So if Russia went to war, it would be out-gunned and weekend, and soon every nation bordering it would rush in and slice up the giants land until only Moscow remains. Its only defence are-state of the arts nuclear missiles, but as NATO has effectively disarmed them with the missal shield surrounding them they wouldn’t last long.

China is a threat as they are better funded and constantly used(in Armed-Unarmed combat with their own people)- they have a large military and lets face it you would never have enough bullets for all of them(unless they made them for you). With them combined with a nuclear state like Russia it would be a world war3.

The USA is well known for its high-tech weapons, large military and suicidal nuclear weapon programs. At the moment their about as powerful as china military wise and better then Russia nuke-wise.

Obviously the big one in this is the commonwealth as it has all the advancements of American weapons, many nations worth of nukes, as population to rival china and best of all it has nations all over the world to station bases on. There are 53 nations in the commonwealth and that’s a lot of fire power (and cannon fodder, if you know what I mean?).
OK so a lot of the nations are third world, but corrupt governments spend the most of solders.

SO over all in a war between the Commonwealth, USA, Russia and china, it would be highly probable that the four groups would unite into two, batter the hell out of each other but in the end the most likely winners would be USA and the Commonwealth. However if those two went to war the commonwealth wins, but would be weakened so much it might fall apart, like last time.

The EU should be there rather than the commonwealth, be realistic, the british empire, like the french or german is long and dead and it's only legacy is the messes its left between countries like india and pakistan, and the commonwealth, just like the french left their mess in algeria 40 years ago, and have their community.

QFT.

-snip-
Russia and the US would turn on China in their weak point and try to conquer them. China has the world's largest air force, but against the US and Russia combined, it would *probably* fall, hard to say.

The US will then see what massive oil reserves are available, and will turn on Russia and conquer them.

lolwut?

Russia alone would smash the Chinese military, only subduing the population would probably prove impossible for either the US or the Russians. One way or another I don't see Russia and America going to war with each other. Historically they never have and I really hope they never will.

I do a military Ranking!


Largest Army Force (Largest is definently not the best really. North Korea is the 4th largest but Israel could easily kick their ass. Its like a bunch of cavemen with sticks against the SAS. But numbers do matter.)

Quick Fact: Even Japan who barely has an army has more than the UK.

1. China
2. USA
3. India
4. North Korea
5. Russia
6. South Korea
7. Pakistan
8. Iran
9. Turkey
10. Vietnam

Strongest Armies

1. USA (No Crap, its a light year away from Russia)
2. Russia
3. Israel
4. Germany
5. China
6. France-Pakistan (Tied)
7. South Korea
8. Iran
9. India
10. England


They're official rankings by the UN


Interesting Fact: If Iran was part of WWII, its importance and strength would be like Romania.
Russia Would be Germany.

lolwut?

Russia alone would smash the Chinese military, only subduing the population would probably prove impossible for either the US or the Russians. One way or another I don't see Russia and America going to war with each other. Historically they never have and I really hope they never will.

Uhh, Cold War, especially the 1960's?


Nuclear war seemed a reality.

Being an Australian, I think I can safely say that Australia would never go to war with either britain or the US. In the near-impossible scenario that they go to war with each other, Australia would probably side with the US first, as militarily they have done a lot more for us than the UK ever has, although it is equally likely we would just refuse to contribute to the war at all, und thus avoid the ire of either nuclear armed nation.

who would win in a war between the USA, Russia, China or the British Common wealth (regardless of the fact that it is a non military organisation)

I would. Me and my army of renegade polar bears. And attack-Roombas.

Well, if Britain pissed off America, it would go one of two ways:

China sides with Britain, as does Russia. Against the three powers, the US would begin to lose, and go nuclear. Nuclear war - everyone loses.

China sides with the US, so does Russia. Against the three powers, Britain is ground into dust, but goes nuclear, and everyone loses less than the first scenario.

Assuming the second scenario, it would play out as follows:

Russia and the US would turn on China in their weak point and try to conquer them. China has the world's largest air force, but against the US and Russia combined, it would *probably* fall, hard to say.

The US will then see what massive oil reserves are available, and will turn on Russia and conquer them.

Correction. Both the US and Russia have a larger air force than China, as well as having superior technology (at least the US anyways).

The straight facts right now are that the US would still destroy any other force on earth. We have a larger navy and a larger air force than China or Russia, and we also have the second largest army in the world. The American army is also by far the best equipped and most advanced, and nearly the most highly trained (next to Isreal of course). The only serious contender against America is China. In the event of an actual war, however, the US would still crush China due to their limited capability of actually projecting their power. China has practically no blue water navy, their air force is out of date and smaller than Americas, and their army is not nearly as well equipped or prepared for war as the US army. Also, in the event of nuclear war China only has around 20-30 ICBM's capable of striking the US. So basically the US would only be severely damaged by a Chinese nuclear strike, while an American nuclear strike on China would result in total devastation, and almost no survivors.

Not Only that, but:

Defense Spending for the US outweighs all other nations, (including the UK, by 10x)

— World Total 1,158,000,000,000 2006 est.
1 United States 540,700,000,000 2007
2 United Kingdom 58,400,000,000 2007
3 France 53,100,000,000 2006
4 China 45,000,000,000 2007
5 Japan 42,700,000,000 2006
6 Germany 37,000,000,000 2006
7 Russia 34,200,000,000 2006 est.
8 Italy 28,100,000,000 2006
9 Saudi Arabia 27,200,000,000 2006
10 India 24,100,000,000 2006
11 South Korea 23,900,000,000 2006
12 Australia 14,100,000,000 2006
13 Canada 13,200,000,000 2006
14 Brazil 12,800,000,000 2006
15 Spain 12,300,000,000 2006

Speaking as a Canadian of Indian descent, ahem...Fuck the British and their Commonwealth too. I'm not dying for any queen.

After the post by Nilpnt about India vs Pakistan It got me thinking who would win in a war between the USA, Russia, China or the British Common wealth (regardless of the fact that it is a non military organisation)

War is not a prize fight. Absent any military aims, the only answer is "both would lose."

I think you've got say the common wealth cos we got India, Britain and Canada
oh and Australia

If you think any of those are going to side with Britain in war for the sake of it, you're barking mad. Ring the servant's bell all you like, your empire is bloody well gone.

EDIT: Reading a bit of the thread, I see I was confused by the OP. Reading the OP again, it really isn't clear who the "contenders" are, so I'll just leave my poor confused post here, to remind myself not to try answering stupid questions.

No one wins in a nuclear holocaust.

No one wins in a nuclear holocaust.

The country with the most people left wins, obviously.

The country with the most people left wins, obviously.
Yeah, but when society has collapsed and the vast majority of life on Earth is slowly melting, winning doesn't seem all that fun.

a free for all is not likely happen so it is best to do scenrios based on 1 v 1


US versus the common wealth assuming non nuclear.

I would put my money on the US.

US still responsible for greater production then the common wealth I think it is 16% of the world Versus 20%. US also has a much larger gold stock so it would be easier for the Us to shift production of ammunition to neutral countries.(gold is needed to buy stuff on the international market during a long drawn out war.)

Large numbers of Us troops in Canada would likely make Canada declare neutrality. Or would lead to a quick capitulation of Canada.
Also too easy for the US to split India off from the British forces. simple offer to help them take Kashmir after the war is over if they declare neutrality, or better yet side with the US.
Not to mention easy access to england proper would be had by making Ireland
an Ally, just simply offer them norther Ireland back at the end of the war.


Russia would be a long drawn out. the one major victory the US could score is cutting Russia off form its oil exporting ability blow up pipelines limiting their access to other things. don't see either side able to occupy the other.

Conflict with US and China. Drawn out but over Taiwan. likely US could prevent China from taking Taiwan.

Assuming the second scenario, it would play out as follows:

Russia and the US would turn on China in their weak point and try to conquer them. China has the world's largest air force, but against the US and Russia combined, it would *probably* fall, hard to say.

The US will then see what massive oil reserves are available, and will turn on Russia and conquer them.

I agree, only I would reverse the China-Russia betrayal scenario. Also, we wouldn't go after China when we finished with Russia.

I dont think America can win it just hasnt go the number cmon 1.1 billion in India

So every single man woman and child in India is a soldier who is willing to fight to the death? Ooooook.

India has a powerful army

OK. But what good is and army if you can't get them where the fighting is?

Speaking as a Canadian of Indian descent, ahem...Fuck the British and their Commonwealth too. I'm not dying for any queen.

deport and ship him off to the usa please.

OK. But what good is and army if you can't get them where the fighting is?

The Indian army are all good swimmers.

Can i just say to all Indians, Australians, Canadians and members of other commonwealth nations that the idea of this thread is not that britain has reinstalled the Empire but due unforseen circumstances the commonwealth has magically formed together to help each other as they are the only union powerful enough i think to withstand China, Russia and the U.S. Oh and by the way guys thanks for ur help in the war we couldn't have won it without you oh and America too *cough*.

Oh and because haven't included the E.U as countries i.e the U.K overlap. I was hoping they could vote objectively as they r not members of the participating countries.

Looks like we'll have to wait until EndWar's release to find out.

Strongest Armies

1. USA (No Crap, its a light year away from Russia)
2. Russia
3. Israel
4. Germany
5. China
6. France-Pakistan (Tied)
7. South Korea
8. Iran
9. India
10. England


They're official rankings by the UN


Interesting Fact: If Iran was part of WWII, its importance and strength would be like Romania.
Russia Would be Germany.

Could you please show some links please ?
How UK would finish at the 10 place with the second most funded army in the world ? ( ok, third, since China is totaly lying and invest three times more than what they say )
How Germany would be a greater military power than France and Britain, with HALF their military budget, no nuclear power and no projection ability on themselves ?
And Israël, strongest than the Western European powers, with less than half their army funding ( even accounting the billions of dollars of military help send to them by the US every year ) and a very few number of soldiers ?
And again, no projection ability.

After the post by Nilpnt about India vs Pakistan It got me thinking who would win in a war between the USA, Russia, China or the British Common wealth (regardless of the fact that it is a non military organisation)


Usa Russia China and the Commonwealth... the opposite sides being? Or is it a "everyone vs everyone" scenery?

Anyway:
1.very likely, no one. Total nuclear war, with Russia and USA warheads turning most of the planetary surface into radioactive dust.
2.in a non-nuclear war, the military contractors. They always win.

Could you please show some links please ?
How UK would finish at the 10 place with the second most funded army in the world ? ( ok, third, since China is totaly lying and invest three times more than what they say )
How Germany would be a greater military power than France and Britain, with HALF their military budget, no nuclear power and no projection ability on themselves ?
because the German's are tough the French and British are pansy, also i doubt they count nuclear weapons since the use of them leads to end of the world.
In the case of the UK they have far flung islands they have to defend.

And Israël, strongest than the Western European powers, with less than half their army funding ( even accounting the billions of dollars of military help send to them by the US every year ) and a very few number of soldiers ?
And again, no projection ability.

Id say because of experience, having to kick all 6 of your neighbors ass in 6 days requires lots of skill. And they don't need much force projection to get to where the oil is.

Correction. Both the US and Russia have a larger air force than China, as well as having superior technology (at least the US anyways).

Russia has better aircraft than China... since most of Chinese airplanes are copies of Russian aircrafts.

Btw, I wouldn't bet on the USAF beating the Russian AF.

pfft Germany has kept Britain and France together for over 100 years now and considering preceding WWII a French offer was made for a union of the two I seem to think things are rather rosy to say the least

I am reminded by what Sir Humphey Appleby had to say about some defence issue in the UK and the French. Yes there are our Allies now but we have been fighting them for the past 900 years minister.

Cerean;13701626']Canada and Australia are basically useless. The RAF might last 2 days, Brits are toast after that. Conventional war no occupation, Commonwealth = targets.

Australia can look after its own thank you very much, not to mention we have the best Special Air Service or equivalents in the world.

Speaking as a Canadian of Indian descent, ahem...Fuck the British and their Commonwealth too. I'm not dying for any queen.

What about your country either Canada or India, and your way of life.

I have never heard the Commonwealth described as a "united military force" and, skimming through wikipedia, didn't find any reference to defense treaties.

If you are going into real life then why bother talking about the Commonwealth even going to war against the US if there was a war amongst these four sides then you can be damn sure the the US and the UK would join forces, Australia would to but I think it would be inclined with US as not only do they have more troops stationed near us but the ANZUS treaty still applies to us.

Your name is very appropiate. The commonwealth is something brought up by Britons who can't accept that the empire is gone and Britain is no longer a world power. See also: The Blessed Chris.

It is most crucially used as context for a couple of weeks of sports every few years.

You are so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

The commonwealth's inclusion in this is a bit of a joke. Those who argue the EU would never act together in a military situation can't say the commonwealth would, far from it indeed. Politically the commonwealth nations have very little in common. Most states are just in it for the economic benefits of free trade with britain etc., NZ, AUS and Canada will go the second Elizabeth dies, or sooner.

The EU should be there rather than the commonwealth, be realistic, the British empire, like the french or German is long and dead and it's only legacy is the messes its left between countries like india and pakistan, and the commonwealth, just like the french left their mess in algeria 40 years ago, and have their community.

Even if NZ Canada and Australia (God forbid) where to get rid of the monarch as their sovereign, that doesn't mean that those countries would leave the Commonwealth, there are a lot of countries in the Commonwealth like this.

I do agree with you the EU should also be considered in this, but wouldn't many of the NATO nations ban up with the US and hence the UK bringing in the many Commonwealth nations with them. And I know Russia is a part of NATO, but they way they are at the moment they would leave straight away.

After the post by Nilpnt about India vs Pakistan It got me thinking who would win in a war between the USA, Russia, China or the British Common wealth (regardless of the fact that it is a non military organisation)

I think you've got say the common wealth cos we got India, Britain and Canada
oh and Australia

How do you define "win", and when was the last time in history this "winning of a war" happened?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the post by Nilpnt about India vs Pakistan It got me thinking who would win in a war between the USA, Russia, China or the British Common wealth (regardless of the fact that it is a non military organisation)

Of course, as a registered military tactician, i have to say china would win. As usa, british commonwealth, and australia are allies and have signed various pacts, this is one country stands war, so china would win by getting aid from alot of countries. us, the british commonwealth, and australia fighting would be a real surprise. When pakistan helps china, a chain of other countries like iran, afghanistan would help too, so china would win

because the German's are tough the French and British are pansy, also i doubt they count nuclear weapons since the use of them leads to end of the world.
In the case of the UK they have far flung islands they have to defend.

Since the French and British are the only european powers having done and won war since WW II I think this comment is not very accurate :D
( Look for exemple for the Falkland war or the French non-declared war on Lybia: Opération Epervier )

Having and island is also an advantage for defense purpose...as a French I think that we are the people who experienced it the most: crushing English armies on the continent was never enough to beat them, because they have this little straits of sea :]

In the case exposed in this thread, UK would certainly invade Ireland if this country choose to side with English ennemies.

But a blocus on food importation would certainly starve UK to surrender.


Id say because of experience, having to kick all 6 of your neighbors ass in 6 days requires lots of skill. And they don't need much force projection to get to where the oil is.

Syria, Jordiana and Egypt. Who are the three others ? You count the 300 Saoudian logisticians as a full scale military operation ?

I would not judge the performance of an army for what they have done so long times ago.
Hom many soldiers who have fought the Six Days War are still into active service ?
Even in 1973 the Arab neighbours of Israël were far better than in 1967.

And, today, the main oil owner ( Saoudi Arabia ) is equally trained and equipped than Tsahal, thanks to the Pentagon.

Russia has better aircraft than China... since most of Chinese airplanes are copies of Russian aircrafts.

Btw, I wouldn't bet on the USAF beating the Russian AF.

I don't know if the US could get Air supremacy over Russia, but they could pretty much prevent Russian air craft from operating in the Us.

I don't know if the US could get Air supremacy over Russia, but they could pretty much prevent Russian air craft from operating in the Us.

Yes, and same goes vice-versa. So it's a tie. Both know that, and so both would avoid such an useless conflict.

Direct confrontation between superpowers (by superpowers I mean USA, Russia, EU, China, India) will NOT happen in the next 20 years, with the possible exception of border skirmishes India vs. China and China vs.CIS - very unlikely though, expecially the latter. Proxy wars are more likely.

Could you please show some links please ?
How UK would finish at the 10 place with the second most funded army in the world ? ( ok, third, since China is totaly lying and invest three times more than what they say )
How Germany would be a greater military power than France and Britain, with HALF their military budget, no nuclear power and no projection ability on themselves ?
And Israël, strongest than the Western European powers, with less than half their army funding ( even accounting the billions of dollars of military help send to them by the US every year ) and a very few number of soldiers ?
And again, no projection ability.

And England wouldn't be on that list the United Kingdon would be

Since the French and British are the only european powers having done and won war since WW II I think this comment is not very accurate :D
( Look for exemple for the Falkland war or the French non-declared war on Lybia: Opération Epervier )
I wouldnt give the French much credit in that victory since they gave up rather early in the war, and what little credit the free french might claim is countered by the fact that Vichy French lost. Even england doesn't get most of the credit, If the soviets weren't advancing I doubt the English ever would have got across the channel.


Having and island is also an advantage for defense purpose...as a French I think that we are the people who experienced it the most: crushing English armies on the continent was never enough to beat them, because they have this little straits of sea :]

There is a difference between your home country being an Island and having a far flung Island to defend. If the island isn't a source of production and man power it will in general cost more to defend.

In the case exposed in this thread, UK would certainly invade Ireland if this country choose to side with English ennemies.

But a blocus on food importation would certainly starve UK to surrender.

in the event the Us was the enemy to the UK the Us navy would have both the ability to prevent any British amphibious landing on Ireland as well as blockade imports.


Syria, Jordiana and Egypt. Who are the three others ? You count the 300 Saoudian logisticians as a full scale military operation ?

Iraq, Lebanon, and I count the remaining 5 countries sending partial military support as one. but they include Libya, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates. so I stand by the 6 to one odds.

I would not judge the performance of an army for what they have done so long times ago.
Hom many soldiers who have fought the Six Days War are still into active service ?
Even in 1973 the Arab neighbours of Israël were far better than in 1967.

The low ranking soldiers are now the leaders of the military and goverment today.
also Israel has dealt with violence on a daily basis since then, and most Israeli soldiers would be considered Seasoned veterans in the rest of the world. also in 73' the Arabs had an initial advantage because they attacked on a religious holiday.

And, today, the main oil owner ( Saoudi Arabia ) is equally trained and equipped than Tsahal, thanks to the Pentagon.

also today in Saudi Arabia Us soldiers are on Saudi Soil, and US companies control their infrastructure (sewage, electricity, Etc) so they are unlikely to attack Israel or cut off their oil because of their connection with the US.

And England wouldn't be on that list the United Kingdon would be
oh please
anyone out side of the UK uses the terms interchangeably.

oh please
anyone out side of the UK uses the terms interchangeably.

Yet it's completely incorrect.

Yet it's completely incorrect.

Well there is a lot of countries in the world, and many people are geographically challenged, so let's be tolerant for such mistakes: Indians (used for names of citizens of India and native Americans), Americans (used both for names of citizens of USA and inhabitants of Americas), Georgia (Country and province in USA), England/UK, etc.

Well there is a lot of countries in the world, and many people are geographically challenged, so let's be tolerant for such mistakes: Indians (used for names of citizens of India and native Americans), Americans (used both for names of citizens of USA and inhabitants of Americas), Georgia (Country and province in USA), England/UK, etc.

Yes but people should be expected to correct their mistakes when informed of them (especially if they travel to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, in this case, and want to be treated nicely)

I do agree with you the EU should also be considered in this, but wouldn't many of the NATO nations ban up with the US and hence the UK bringing in the many Commonwealth nations with them. And I know Russia is a part of NATO, but they way they are at the moment they would leave straight away.

Russia? A NATO member? ...(pause)...NOT:D
NATO was formed mainly by USA and UK to counter the Soviet "threat"(Warsaw Pact). I think Putin once said "what's the point of existence of NATO since the ussr has now collapsed?"

Really, what's its point now?

Yet it's completely incorrect.

only if you live in the UK or are a poli Sci major. besides the most commonly spoken language in the world just refers to england, Great Britain or the UK as Ying Gou. With Ying being a phononym for england.

And 1.2 billion Chinese are never wrong.

:eek:
I didn't know that Chinese outnumber the english speaking population. Is that true?

Edit:
1 Chinese 1,205m (1999)
2 Spanish 322.3m (1995)
3 English 309.4m (1984

Ok native english speakers are outnumbered by far. But what about generally english speakers?

I wouldnt give the French much credit in that victory since they gave up rather early in the war, and what little credit the free french might claim is countered by the fact that Vichy French lost. Even england doesn't get most of the credit, If the soviets weren't advancing I doubt the English ever would have got across the channel.

I have said " since World War Two "... and don't going to be swallowed by a thread about the fall of France, we have done just last month.

I spoke about recent wars, using modern warfare.
Opération Epervier, Falkland War...

Iraq, Lebanon, and I count the remaining 5 countries sending partial military support as one. but they include Libya, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates. so I stand by the 6 to one odds.

Lebanon was never involved into agression against Israël.
Irak throw very few soldiers and if you count the logistic help, you must also take into account that Israël received just before the war hundred of jet fighters of the French Armée de l'Air, fully armed with brand new missiles.

So doens't sound like that we could speak of Israël alone, if you count logistical support as belligerant.

The low ranking soldiers are now the leaders of the military and goverment today.

Everyone knew this little problem that Israël has no political class, only military officers who don't understand what is an horizontal hierarchy or a negociation process.
I was talking about the soldiers in active duty.

Nowadays wars are not 1960's wars, the total failure of Tsahal against Hezbollah show it in summer 2006 and now even worser.

also Israel has dealt with violence on a daily basis since then, and most Israeli soldiers would be considered Seasoned veterans in the rest of the world. also in 73' the Arabs had an initial advantage because they attacked on a religious holiday.

I don't think that the professional soldiers of Western armies are not at least equal.
Again, in 2006 it was very clear that most of the IDF weren't at all able to sustain a battle they weren't winning from the beginning.

About 1973 , the Israelian had the advantage that the USA forced the Egyptien army to stop it's advance into the Sinaï desert and stand there until the IDF could elaborate a counter-attack.

Counter-balancer the holy day no ?

also today in Saudi Arabia Us soldiers are on Saudi Soil, and US companies control their infrastructure (sewage, electricity, Etc) so they are unlikely to attack Israel or cut off their oil because of their connection with the US.

They are no more US military bases in Saoudi Arabia, they are in Qatar and Emirates.
And the Saoudian control more than a third of the US militaro-industrial complex, thanks to our oil buying who never slow down.

So US is very unlikely to broke his comfortable alliance with Saoudi Arabia...US never threatened this country after 9/11, even if most of the terrorists came from there, even if more than half of the money used by Al-Qaida came from there.

oh please
anyone out side of the UK uses the terms interchangeably.

yeah 1st thats crap 2nd u'd have thought the UN would realise if it is an official figure

Russia? A NATO member? ...(pause)...NOT:D
NATO was formed mainly by USA and UK to counter the Soviet "threat"(Warsaw Pact). I think Putin once said "what's the point of existence of NATO since the ussr has now collapsed?"

Really, what's its point now?

Oops, what was I thinking for some bizarre reason I thought that Russia had joined.

The initial reason might not be exactly there anymore, but I am sure Russia wouldn't mind increasing its borders. They are now used for peacekeeping nowadays, East Europe still has problems that need NATO soldiers there, not to mention that by maintaining strong defence links they will be ready should anymore threats take hold, such as China and Iran. (Japan and Australia are looking at joining NATO as satellite members to help not only in peacekeeping but as a deterrent

Russia? A NATO member? ...(pause)...NOT:D
NATO was formed mainly by USA and UK to counter the Soviet "threat"(Warsaw Pact). I think Putin once said "what's the point of existence of NATO since the ussr has now collapsed?"

Really, what's its point now?

As former (seven times) PM of Italy Giulio Andreotti (christian democrat) said back in 1992 iirc.

Anyway, Russia is an official "partner for peace" of NATO. Nothing more nothing less.

Can i just say to all Indians, Australians, Canadians and members of other commonwealth nations that the idea of this thread is not that britain has reinstalled the Empire but due unforseen circumstances the commonwealth has magically formed together to help each other as they are the only union powerful enough i think to withstand China, Russia and the U.S. Oh and by the way guys thanks for ur help in the war we couldn't have won it without you oh and America too *cough*.

Oh and because haven't included the E.U as countries i.e the U.K overlap. I was hoping they could vote objectively as they r not members of the participating countries.

"The war" as in WW2?

yeah that 1

I see Russia and China fighting together, you know the whole "Death of the west" thing. But in the end it would go nuclear, you can thank us Americans for that, were pussies with big guns.

You are so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.


Take your time then. I'd love to hear how the commonwealth is of global importance.

I'm aware, but Canada is about as useful in a war as a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest.


Tell that to the canucks who are fighting for their lives in Helmand

because the German's are tough the French and British are pansy, also i doubt they count nuclear weapons since the use of them leads to end of the world.
In the case of the UK they have far flung islands they have to defend.


Id say because of experience, having to kick all 6 of your neighbors ass in 6 days requires lots of skill. And they don't need much force projection to get to where the oil is.

British soldiers? Pansys???

Right. =/

Where do I begin,

Agincourt
Boyne
Colluden
Nile
Balaclava
Trafalgar
Waterloo
Rorkes Drift
Mons pt1
Cambrai
Arras
Battle of Britain
St Nazaire.
Al Aleiman
Cassino (eventually with US aid)
Normandy
Burma campaign
Caen
Falaise (Allied victory)
Arnhem (90% successful, US let us down at nimjagen, but it was a hard job and they did their best)
Rhine crossing (was the 1st crossing)
Suez
Malaya (after this victory we was asked by the French for help in Vietnam, we declined thankfully, guess who went in next)
Aden (Oman)
Falklands (inc Goose Green, Port Stanley and Wireless Ridge)
Iranian embassy seige
Gulf war 1
Gulf war 2
Afghanistan

The above is a list of various battles and campaigns won by a force consisting of British forces.

The British military, although small, is extremely well funded, (2nd in world)
Extremely well trained with very good equipment. (I'm pretty sure Israels Tavor (TAR-21) is based on the SA80 design, need confirmation however. Chobam tank armour, HESH rounds, Javelin, and Sabot are British too. Teflon coated rounds too.)

Someone said the Aussie SAS was the best?

Yes it's a bloody good special force, but like most others, the British SAS trained it, and is superior.

Now it would be stupid to say the UK was the best. because frankly it isn't.

Exceptional training, large amounts of funding and good equipment doe's not get you everywhere.

It's small size (roughly 200,000 men 2008 est*) limits it.

But please do not rob us of what we deserve.

A good reputation for fighting. Good training, good equipment.

backed up by a excellent navy. And most likely the best Air force in history (if it isnt the best, its second to Israel's) Just because the USAF has more planes and more funding don't mean its the best. The skill of British Pilots is second to none. And the Euro fighter isn't a bad aircraft. (don't get me wrong the USAF is very good)

Perhaps what we do do the best. Is special forces. The SAS, SBS, Para's, Marines, Light infantry, Desert rats and Pathfinders are just some of the Elite forces in the UK military.

Remember, what the US considers elite, the UK generally considers standard.

If you really want me to go on about UK/US/other nations military equipment I'd be happy to reply to emails.

^Above information provided by college degree's.


I really can't be bothered to fight the French side of this argument....

Tell that to the canucks who are fighting for their lives in Helmand

Fighting in Helmand, alongside British and Australian, and other Commonwealth troops. (mainly British and Canadian)

Which is good, Support from the Commonwealth is always welcomed. Plus The Canucks and Aussies are historically good soldiers, like the Brits.

All on all Cos in this scenario britain has pissed off America it can be nuclear or non nuclear aswell

Nobody would win. It's a stupid question. Even if someone did manage to win in the end they'd be so decimated they'd spend 100 years trying to clean up the mess. Chances are it'd turn to nuclear exchange so fast that half the Earth would be wiped out before the end of American Idol.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war."

Considering a pair of American carrier groups could take on the entire world's navies without much trouble, and then bomb the hell out of each country's infrastructure - even with all the others teamed up, without nukes there's no way America loses.

Considering a pair of American carrier groups could take on the entire world's navies without much trouble, and then bomb the hell out of each country's infrastructure - even with all the others teamed up, without nukes there's no way America loses.

Other countries have carrier groups too D=

Like the UK? I presume Russia doe's. China probably does too? erm, most of the modern world that has a navy and aircraft?

I shouldn't just rely on that statement you gave.

Its not like the US is the only ones with Anti shipping missles?

The Sea eagle missile springs to mind. That's not American

Air-to-air
ASRAAM · Fireflash · Firestreak · Red Dean · Red Top · Skyflash

Air-to-surface

ALARM · Brimstone · Martel1 · Sea Eagle · Sea Skua · Storm Shadow1
Surface-to-air

Bloodhound · Blowpipe · Javelin · Rapier · Sea Cat · Sea Dart · Sea Slug · Sea Wolf · Starburst · Starstreak · Tigercat · Thunderbird

Surface-to-surface

Swingfire · Malkara2 · UB.109T · Vigilant

Strategic and
tactical nuclear

Blue Steel · Blue Streak · Blue Water · Green Cheese

That's the UK alone. and that's just Guided weapons. I could go on forever...

*most of those aren't used any more in favour of more up to date designs.

The world is still quite obvilious to the fact that wars are no longer fought so much by countries, but by individuals. The great power war scenario seems to be shrinking away into oblivion.

Case in point: the USA is the "greatest military power" in the world. Why is it struggling so hard to win in Iraq?