Top 10 Best Modern Militaries/Armed Forces
- Thread starter Silverbackman
- Start date
with due respect india did not win all wars from pakistan. just few minutes before attack on pakistan indian general said "i,ll take breakfast in LAHORE(pakistani city)". but he was unable to do so. in 1971 we lost war and east pakistan (current bangladesh) too. in KARGIL WAR war was fought in kargil that is far away from LOC (line of control between paki & indian kashmir). if it was fought there then a question arises how pakistani forces went there? ofcourse paki forces captured all that land. & paki fources with draw from there bcoz of USA involvement and support to india.
with due respect india did not win all wars from pakistan. just few minutes before attack on pakistan indian general said "i,ll take breakfast in LAHORE(pakistani city)". but he was unable to do so. in 1971 we lost war and east pakistan (current bangladesh) too. in KARGIL WAR war was fought in kargil that is far away from LOC (line of control between paki & indian kashmir). if it was fought there then a question arises how pakistani forces went there? ofcourse paki forces captured all that land. & paki fources with draw from there bcoz of USA involvement and support to india.
I think china actually far outstrips the EU in terms of power. The reason being not simply because it has a large military. If i was a more seasoned poster, I would link you some articles on this, but since I cant, Im relegated to simply stating that the US believes that China is not far away from completely outstripping the United States' military power in the region. Keep in mind that we have Japan right on their doorstep, with its own powerfull navy as you pointed out. You should youtube China vs US: empires at war sometime. Im not really sure who the video was created by, but because I dont know, I wont claim it to be entirely credible. However, If you go on newsdaily sometime and look at some stuff related to US China military relations, there was just an article about the double-digit increase in expendatures for the past 10 years EVERY year. Meanwhile, the EU has been criticized US commanders for not doing enough for itself. I guess the EU had to have ammunition and logistics provided by the US in order to even execute the attacks on Libya. Look it up sometime.
I disagree with your position. The only thing that matters in nuclear war is offensive power. Neither Russia, nor China have ANY kind of missle defence system, and neither does the US when you get down to it even thoug we have the technology. I dont understand how you could make the statement that any nations nuclear arsenal "erodes" another quantitatively or qualitatively. Literally it just comes down to the questions "do you have enough nuclear weapons to canvas all of their population centers?" and "Can you deliver those nuclear weapons to their targets?". At this point, the United States Is definately is capable of delivering their nuclear arsenal via submarines and my perception is that China also has this capability, albeit more limited. Russia still relies far too heavily on ICBM systems. Russia's Solution to the proposed missle defence system in Eastern Europe was literally to move soo many nuclear missles that they couldnt be shot down, so close to "enemy" territory that they would inflict massive damage if destroyed in the sky above the territory. Literally, so long as you have Mutually Assured Destruction intact, the orininal posters thread is completely valid because all of the developed nations nuclear capabilites are more than enough to wipe everyone out. The only other ballpark to play in is conventional weapons against 3rd world countries like pakistan.
Sorry for not making it explicit in who I originally intended my post for, so I am reposting in response to B.Poster
I disagree with your position. The only thing that matters in nuclear war is offensive power. Neither Russia, nor China have ANY kind of missle defence system, and neither does the US when you get down to it even thoug we have the technology. I dont understand how you could make the statement that any nations nuclear arsenal "erodes" another quantitatively or qualitatively. Literally it just comes down to the questions "do you have enough nuclear weapons to canvas all of their population centers?" and "Can you deliver those nuclear weapons to their targets?". At this point, the United States Is definately is capable of delivering their nuclear arsenal via submarines and my perception is that China also has this capability, albeit more limited. Russia still relies far too heavily on ICBM systems. Russia's Solution to the proposed missle defence system in Eastern Europe was literally to move soo many nuclear missles that they couldnt be shot down, so close to "enemy" territory that they would inflict massive damage if destroyed in the sky above the territory. Literally, so long as you have Mutually Assured Destruction intact, the orininal posters thread is completely valid because all of the developed nations nuclear capabilites are more than enough to wipe everyone out. The only other ballpark to play in is conventional weapons against 3rd world countries like pakistan.
I disagree with your position. The only thing that matters in nuclear war is offensive power. Neither Russia, nor China have ANY kind of missle defence system, and neither does the US when you get down to it even thoug we have the technology. I dont understand how you could make the statement that any nations nuclear arsenal "erodes" another quantitatively or qualitatively. Literally it just comes down to the questions "do you have enough nuclear weapons to canvas all of their population centers?" and "Can you deliver those nuclear weapons to their targets?". At this point, the United States Is definately is capable of delivering their nuclear arsenal via submarines and my perception is that China also has this capability, albeit more limited. Russia still relies far too heavily on ICBM systems. Russia's Solution to the proposed missle defence system in Eastern Europe was literally to move soo many nuclear missles that they couldnt be shot down, so close to "enemy" territory that they would inflict massive damage if destroyed in the sky above the territory. Literally, so long as you have Mutually Assured Destruction intact, the orininal posters thread is completely valid because all of the developed nations nuclear capabilites are more than enough to wipe everyone out. The only other ballpark to play in is conventional weapons against 3rd world countries like pakistan.
Dont forget that the United States Holds all of pakistans nuclear weapons. I forget where I saw that, but go ahead and check it out on google. Im sure you will find it.
Thats pretty interesting. I didnt know India had developed anything. I had heard the russians had been working on something for a while, but didnt know the name. I also noticed you were from India: an interesting thing I might say india has going for it is that you have the Sikh people with you. In my opinion they are some of the best fighters, and best people (culturally speaking) in the world. I would be interested in hearing any comments you have on that subject to be honest.
Okay, first of all the Russian Federation right now has way way less poverty in their cities than the US does by fact. Also, the US does not own the competition because the fact the matter is that Russia is the largest country on Earth and a country can invade but will never be able to hold it because no country can keep that much space under control and the Russian military by far has one of the best and most grusome military basic trainings in the world and they the the worlds most elite fighting forces the VDV Paratroopers and the Spetsnaz. But luckily right now the US and Russian Federation are getting along and doing better than ever and are doing air mission training, anti terrorism exercises, and ground force exercises as well.
Here are mine;
1. United States
Big Gap Here
2. Russia
Big Gap Here
3. China
4. India
5. United Kingdom
6. France
7. Germany
8. Japan
9. Brazil
10. Pakistan
Obviously United States owns the competition. No military comes close anymore. Russia obviously comes next, with a large geographic size, okay population, and high tech weapons from the old Soviet Union (although their poverty is bringing them down).
China and India come next with the largest populations and one of the largest land areas. China has the largest overall armed forces, India has the second largest overall armed forces.
United Kingdom and France comes next with technology (especially Britain's special forces) as good as Russia, maybe even better. Their small size and population keeps them a BIT lower than the other Eurasian giants.
Germany and Japan (especially Japan) has had a lot of international pressure against military build-up but they still have one of the best armed forces. Germany has some of the finest tank forces in the world. Japan still has a power navy, although it has decreased quite a bit since WWII.
I wasn't sure who would come next but after some thinking Brazil seems powerful enough. It has a large geographic size and population and their armed forces are pretty big too. They also have a pretty large economy to make up for anything else. Pakistan would come next, with a pretty large military. They have also developed nukes (this list doesn't focus much on nukes but it deserves a mention in this case none the less).
What are your top 10?[/QUOTE]
Here are mine;
1. United States
Big Gap Here
2. Russia
Big Gap Here
3. China
4. India
5. United Kingdom
6. France
7. Germany
8. Japan
9. Brazil
10. Pakistan
Obviously United States owns the competition. No military comes close anymore. Russia obviously comes next, with a large geographic size, okay population, and high tech weapons from the old Soviet Union (although their poverty is bringing them down).
China and India come next with the largest populations and one of the largest land areas. China has the largest overall armed forces, India has the second largest overall armed forces.
United Kingdom and France comes next with technology (especially Britain's special forces) as good as Russia, maybe even better. Their small size and population keeps them a BIT lower than the other Eurasian giants.
Germany and Japan (especially Japan) has had a lot of international pressure against military build-up but they still have one of the best armed forces. Germany has some of the finest tank forces in the world. Japan still has a power navy, although it has decreased quite a bit since WWII.
I wasn't sure who would come next but after some thinking Brazil seems powerful enough. It has a large geographic size and population and their armed forces are pretty big too. They also have a pretty large economy to make up for anything else. Pakistan would come next, with a pretty large military. They have also developed nukes (this list doesn't focus much on nukes but it deserves a mention in this case none the less).
What are your top 10?[/QUOTE]
M
This statement here, "9% Russia - Russia is performing poorly demographicly and economicly." is a load of macho bullshit. Russias government and economy is improving greatly since the fall of the USSR and just in general. Russia right now has the of the most valuable and most needed resourses such as oil, petroleum etc. Right now democracy in Russia is doing better and is improving too, and the poverty rate in russia right now is dropping which is a very good thing and it means people are getting jobs across the country
This statement here, "9% Russia - Russia is performing poorly demographicly and economicly." is a load of macho bullshit. Russias government and economy is improving greatly since the fall of the USSR and just in general. Russia right now has the of the most valuable and most needed resourses such as oil, petroleum etc. Right now democracy in Russia is doing better and is improving too, and the poverty rate in russia right now is dropping which is a very good thing and it means people are getting jobs across the country
Old A 6 Driver
Junior Member
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
End of Life
If any of the major nuclear powers were to ever launch and all out exchange, read the 1950's novel "On the Beach" by Nevil shute
It is highly likely that the only humans (With exceptions of small pockets who would quickly pass on) left would be the crews of the boomers, the nuclear missile subs that are virtually untouchable (Well, at least the US ones are, the Russian ones seem to sink and crash a lot on their own when they are able to put to sea)
The Trident subs at sea during any particular time are much more than capable of destroying just about every living thing on earth with over 1 million times the destructive force of the bombs dropped on Japan circa 1945. This doesn't even take into consideration the four Ohio class that have been retrofitted as "Cruise missile" subs, each one carrying more nuclear tipped cruise missiles than an entire Carrier battle group
Some land based ICBMs "might' get through before the subs got them, highly doubt and bombers would,and your argument about who has the best special forces, well I hope they can dig holes real deep and kiss their as* good bye
As it was once said: I don't know what weapons WW III will be fought with, but WW IV will be with sticks and stones
These subs would launch, their missiles would get through and .........
If any of the major nuclear powers were to ever launch and all out exchange, read the 1950's novel "On the Beach" by Nevil shute
It is highly likely that the only humans (With exceptions of small pockets who would quickly pass on) left would be the crews of the boomers, the nuclear missile subs that are virtually untouchable (Well, at least the US ones are, the Russian ones seem to sink and crash a lot on their own when they are able to put to sea)
The Trident subs at sea during any particular time are much more than capable of destroying just about every living thing on earth with over 1 million times the destructive force of the bombs dropped on Japan circa 1945. This doesn't even take into consideration the four Ohio class that have been retrofitted as "Cruise missile" subs, each one carrying more nuclear tipped cruise missiles than an entire Carrier battle group
Some land based ICBMs "might' get through before the subs got them, highly doubt and bombers would,and your argument about who has the best special forces, well I hope they can dig holes real deep and kiss their as* good bye
As it was once said: I don't know what weapons WW III will be fought with, but WW IV will be with sticks and stones
These subs would launch, their missiles would get through and .........
Keegah
Regular Member
- Messages
- 83
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Irish/English, with some Scottish, German and Welsh
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I2a1b2-Isles-D1
- mtDNA haplogroup
- K1c2
MAD's a pretty strong deterrent, though.
Of course, religious zealotry can be even stronger. Hence why all the world needs to do everything in its power to stabilize Pakistan. The consequences of our not doing so might turn out to be catastrophic in the long run.
Are you a Navy vet Driver?
Of course, religious zealotry can be even stronger. Hence why all the world needs to do everything in its power to stabilize Pakistan. The consequences of our not doing so might turn out to be catastrophic in the long run.
Are you a Navy vet Driver?
JFWR
Banned
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
- Location
- New York City
- Ethnic group
- Irish, English, French, German, Swedish, and Finnish
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I-m223
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H64
It's a frightening prospect if Pakistan were to fall and its nuclear arms got into the hands of Moslem extremists.
Old A 6 Driver
Junior Member
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
JFWR & Keegah, yes. 22 years, went from driving A-6's to "playing" with S 3 for time, then schools, Squadron Commander etc. Couldn't see well enough any more and getting that fourth stripe is near impossible unless engaged in war, so now I'm a useless old fat guy
JFWR
Banned
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
- Location
- New York City
- Ethnic group
- Irish, English, French, German, Swedish, and Finnish
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I-m223
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H64
Cire
Regular Member
Measuring a military by the size of it's army is misleading. Look at iraq in Kuwait, Iraq had at least a top 20 army and the US defeated it in 3 days (size doesn't always matter). On N Korea while it's army is large it suffers from a lack of food, the height of the average solder has been dropping for years showing poor diet. When solders have to steal food from civilians you have a major problem.
Cire
Regular Member
I like to look at the problem from multiple sides offensive, defensive, air, sea and land capability. I think scoring on the size of an army is a mistake look at the US vs Iraq 3 days. Some countries have large army's just to keep there population in line. US is unquestionably number one, more aircraft, ships, carriers, subs etc Russia has more tanks and towed artillery same with China. US has the capability to go any where and fight something neither Russia or China can do. Russia is having problems with a lack of NCOS and way to many officers. They have been raiding colleges to fill there personnel needs. They had trouble with Georgia who's military is rated in the thirties in 2008.
This thread has been viewed 695199 times.