The Top 5 Military forces ?

[Launch window]

What do you think the top 5 are ?


Here are my thoughts
1 United States,
the greatest military force on Earth and only Superpower left. The United states has some of the best trained infantry, high tech submarines, stealth bombers, space satellites, while the Airforce and Marine Corps are the best equipped on Earth. The United States Armed Forces is simply the most powerful military in the world the US Air Force has roughly over 7,500 Aircraft ready for action and the USA has almost one and a half million personnel

Weakness : Arrogance, & thinking high-tech toys will get victory in places like Vietnam


2 Russians,
although they are a shadow of their former selves during the USSR days they still have very good technology, spy satellites and a great Air Force. The designs of Migs, Tupolev-blackjack and Sukhoi were deadly aircraft and they have heap of Russian military tanks and the number of Nuke ICBMs it has on duty would be more than sufficient to wreak global havoc and perhaps lave much of our planet uninhabitable.

Wekaness : Poorly funded since the USSR fell, a weak Naval power


3 China's armed forces
China has a good navy, a massive army with cost guard, civil defence and militia perhaps adding up to about 20 million, its 2 million strong infantry makes it the largest army and its has a good airforce. The Chinese are also building new Submarines and it has some powerful strategic nuclear forces.

Weakness : Has depended heavily on Foreign tech ( mostly Russian) and Cruel acts by Communist Party on Chinese people force some to join the army


4 English or French,
both these nations have very powerful forces. They have perhaps some of the best aircraft, some greatest Navy ships in the world and very good Tanks. The Europeans have become united under a single Economic system with the Euro becoming a global currency but rather than becoming something like NATO each European nation still has their own unique military policy. French industry may be slightly ahead and seem to have better designs such as missiles from France and Mirage fighter aircraft, but the British have also been involved great military design like the joint Tornado desgin by English, Germans and Italians or the latest Eurofighter Typhoon.

Weakness : They can have weak leaders, there is European uncertainty, arrogance from individual European nations, much bureaucracy, poltical division


5 India
They have many Tanks, the Military of India is the third-most numerous military in the world, they also possess nuclear weapons, and have a well experienced airforce. India has a powerful naval force perhaps one of the largest navy in terms of personnel and ships.

Weakness : Lack of Indian technology, border wars against powerful rival Pakistan, may suffer due poor political leadership and due to poverty

[Astrobairn]

4 English or French,
both these nations have very powerful forces. They have perhaps some of the best aircraft, some greatest Navy ships in the world and very good Tanks. The Europeans have become united under a single Economic system with the Euro becoming a global currency but rather than becoming something like NATO each European nation still has their own unique military policy. French industry may be slightly ahead and seem to have better designs such as missiles from France and Mirage fighter aircraft, but the British have also been involved great military design like the joint Tornado desgin by English, Germans and Italians or the latest Eurofighter Typhoon.

Weakness : They can have weak leaders, there is European uncertainty, arrogance from individual European nations, much bureaucracy, poltical division

Erm I think you mean British there. I would disagree about weak leaders, the likes of Chirac and Blair are too strong for their own good and don't listen.

Also I would say that the British Army has the best trained (if not the best equipped) infantry going.

I should add that the British armed forces probably couldn't fight a war on their own as they are more adapted to peace keeping and one off operations.

[Lianachan]

Couple of problems - the worst of which Astrobairn has already pointed out. There's no such thing as English armed forces. They are British armed forces. The number of soliders in the SAS, considered the best special forces in the world (with the possible exception of the SBS) that come from Scotland and from "Commonwealth" countries is disproportional to the numbers they contribute to the bulk of the military, and to the percentage they contribute to the general population of the UK and affiliated states.

Secondly - I would not rate the United States first. Aside from technology and weight of numbers, they don't have that much going for them by comparison with some other nations. Also, it is not the only superpower. China is an emerging military and economic superpower. Still, it depends on how you weigh it all up.

EDITED IN -> Interesting/useful link for this sort of comparison:

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Military

[farmerjumperdon]

As far as depending on how you weigh it up; the only thing that matters in weighing military strength is who's got the resources that would most likely make them undefeatable. USA hands down - nobody else would come close. We are definitlely more vulnerable than ever before, but one battle does not make a war. We could get dinged again, but in the end we have the capability to crush any nation that annoys us.

However, throw in politics, and things are not so clear cut. But if the politicians kept their hands off, and the military were given the job to do and the latitude to do it - it's barely a contest.

The Arab-Israeli wars were an excellent example of what happens when a well prepared military is left to simply get the job done.

[Moose]

I would question the appropriateness of this thread. It's already stepped well past the (currently unwritten) rule prohibiting partisan politics and even seems to be brushing into outright jingoism after only a few posts.

[farmerjumperdon]

I don't see any politics in here. And jingoism refers to wanting to solve things by using war or warlike tactics.

I am very much against going to war. I personally do not think there has been a good enough reason to go to war since Hitler. But the question was asked. I don't think assessing preparedness for war is jingoistic.

[Lianachan]

As far as depending on how you weigh it up; the only thing that matters in weighing military strength is who's got the resources that would most likely make them undefeatable. USA hands down - nobody else would come close. We are definitlely more vulnerable than ever before, but one battle does not make a war. We could get dinged again, but in the end we have the capability to crush any nation that annoys us.

However, throw in politics, and things are not so clear cut. But if the politicians kept their hands off, and the military were given the job to do and the latitude to do it - it's barely a contest.

The Arab-Israeli wars were an excellent example of what happens when a well prepared military is left to simply get the job done.

Although I do agree to a certain extent, I disagree that resources are the only factor that should be considered. You have to bring those forces to bear effectively, and this is something the US hasn't proven to be very effective at. Also, I would say that irrespective of supporting hardware, the people that go to make up a country's armed forces are of paramount importance. I would, for example, take 100 Royal Marine Commandos over a similar amount of any US military personnel, including special forces. Note, this isn't a political statement - it's merely a military one.

[Jakenorrish]

Moose I agree. If you are like me and totally against war then there is no such thing as 'top military forces'. They are an necessary evil and war is a terrible thing to be avoided at all costs. Sadly in the 21st Century we have yet as a species been able to mature enough to realise this and seem far too busy playing the blame game with each other to stop blowing our fellow (mostly innocent of any 'crimes') men and women to pieces.

Is someone a worse person because of their religion or creed or location? No. It only ever boils down to one thing Greed, stemming from money and the quest for power whether you are capitalist, communist, Christian, Muslim or Jew.

Stop all war now and lock this pointless thread please moderators!!

[Astrobairn]

If you are like me and totally against war then there is no such thing as 'to Sadly in the 21st Century we have yet as a species been able to mature enough to realise this and seem far too busy playing the blame game with each other to stop blowing our fellow (mostly innocent of any 'crimes') men and women to pieces.

Is someone a worse person because of their religion or creed or location? No. It only ever boils down to one thing Greed, stemming from money and the quest for power whether you are capitalist, communist, Christian, Muslim or Jew.


Can't say I disagree with any of that. However I can see nothing wrong with discussing the current global situation so long as it doesn't decend into partisan politics.

[Moose]

FJD, I mean in the "yay-our-side, meh-everyone-else" sense. And yes, if I cared to, I could point out several examples of this very sort of expression.

This thread is definitely making me uncomfortable.

[Launch window]

EDITED IN -> Interesting/useful link for this sort of comparison:

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Military

I didn't mean to offend anyone with the thread, so I apologiseif anyone took this thread the wrong way but I just wanted to discuss military tech and resources.
That's a good link Lianachan, would you rank the British forces above the French ?

It would be nice if all wars were to just stop tomorrow but it ain't going happen. Sadly wars will be part of humans existence because of humans destructive nature, greed, religious radicals, and so on.

I don't believe in agression or any such tactics, but having a defensive force to protect your area has been important since the days of the ancient Chinese or Romans or the start of human civilistaion itself. I really posted this thread to try and discuss the military aspect of each nation from a tactical, technological or resource point and wanted to leave politics out of this

[farmerjumperdon]

Then you should not participate. Lock the thread - give me a break! There is absolutlely nothing wrong with an attempt to objectively assess the military strengths of nations. People need to be able to distinguish between studying the topic versus advocating war or worse yet actually going out and starting a war. They are radically different things.

I agree that almost all wars, and certainly all modern wars, have been about greed and the struggle for resources. Got nothing to do with capitalism though. I don't think tribes of our ancestors skirmishing over a favored hunting ground gave much thought to comparative economic systems.

[Jakenorrish]

Our ancestors did not posess the power to wipe out tens of thousands of lives in an instant. That is a spurious point to say the least.

I would rather this thread was locked as people such as myself will take great offence at it, especially in times where many people either military or civilian, are losing their lives daily because of war. There is no such thing as military strength. Any use of these means is truly terrible as communication should get the upper hand, not force.

Why don't you go to a more appropriate website to discuss this item further?

[Lianachan]

I agree that this thread need not spiral down the intellectual helter-skelter. Those who think otherwise are under no obligation to read it, are they? Censorship begins at home!

LaunchWindow - I'm afraid I don't know enough about the French military to objectively make that comparison, although I do know the British military very well.

[Astrobairn]

Given thatthis thread looks like dying an undignified death I'll make one last contribution.

While it is true that there are a handful (four or five) countries with global influence there are also several regional powers. In West Africa you have Nigeria, in Southern Africa South Africa, in South America Brazil and in South Asia India and Pakistan.

[Sammy]

I think the nature of the conflict has to be consideredn in assessing relative power. If it is a major conflict inwhich the nation's civilian leadership decides that victory at any cost to the enemy must be obtained, the U.S. would win, hands down.

The combination of ICBMs, Stealth bombers, cruise missiles, and attendant thermonuclear warheads can reduce any opponent to ashes. If that opponent is Russia or China, the U.S. would take some hits, but would certainly prervail.

We (correctly, IMO) did not use that capability in Iraq, Vietnam, and the 1950 Korean conflict. Obviously, in small, restrained conflicts, any Superpower (e.g., Russia in Afganistan in the 80s, the U.S. in Vietnam/Iraq). In that scenario, many factors other than sheer power come into play.

[Moose]

The fact is, FJD, this thread makes entirely subjective value judgements about political entities (nations) resting on nothing more than casual opinion rather than any pretense of supported fact. That is the very definition of a partisan political discussion.

It wouldn't be quite so bad if there were objective numbers involved, but there aren't. This is at its very essence a "my country can beat up your country" thread.

FDJ, would you similarly advocate non-participation in similarly forbidden threads where rough language is used? Non-family friendly topics? After all, one can simply avoid those threads, right? I can't see you advocating this position, but it would be the direct logical extention.

I think I would like a mod opinion on this.

[Lianachan]

The fact is, FJD, this thread makes entirely subjective value judgements about political entities (nations) resting on nothing more than casual opinion rather than any pretense of supported fact. That is the very definition of a partisan political discussion.

It wouldn't be quite so bad if there were objective numbers involved, but there aren't. This is at its very essence a "my country can beat up your country" thread.

FDJ, would you similarly advocate non-participation in similarly forbidden threads where rough language is used? Non-family friendly topics? After all, one can simply avoid those threads, right? I can't see you advocating this position, but it would be the direct logical extention.

I think I would like a mod opinion on this.

I did link to a site that provides statistical, and objective, information on this subject (and many other things about countries), so it need not follow the path you describe.

Our ancestors did not posess the power to wipe out tens of thousands of lives in an instant.

Maybe yours didn't, but mine did!

http://heritage.scotsman.com/myths.cfm?id=41772005

[Jakenorrish]

Grow up, you know exactly what I mean.

[farmerjumperdon]

Rough language? Where?

"my country can beat up your country" Who said that?

Non-family friendly topics? Should all threads about guns, violence, drugs, war, disease, petilence, etc. be locked?

You are for some reason hypersensitive on the topic. The flat out statement that there is no such thing as military strength belies your inability to make distinctions on the items mentioned in the thread. What if someone told you there was no such thing as fast cars? Would they have any business criticising a discussion on performance tires?

You may participate or not, but you have no standing to demand others not participate.

[Lianachan]

Grow up, you know exactly what I mean.

Was that addressed to me?

[Moose]

"my country can beat up your country" Who said that?

We could get dinged again, but in the end we have the capability to crush any nation that annoys us.

You did. There are other examples to be found.

Non-family friendly topics? Should all threads about guns, violence, drugs, war, disease, petilence, etc. be locked?

Non-family friendly meaning topics inappropriate for minors.

[Quote and statement retracted for irrelevancy. No point contributing to what appears to be an imminent meltdown.]

Right. This thread definitely needs immediate mod review.

[farmerjumperdon]

Pointing out the ability or inability to make distinctions is not putting someone down. Especially for those with less experience, it is good to get input from people honest enough to point out objectively where a persons communication or critical thinking skills could be improved - a growth opportunity. I avail myself of them as often as I can keep my eyes open wide enough to see them.

However, "Grow up" definitely does not fit that category. For someone who was just calling for a moderator, not a terribly wise choice of words.

[Jakenorrish]

Non-family friendly topics? Should all threads about guns, violence, drugs, war, disease, petilence, etc. be locked?


If they are extremely offensive to others yes. If you are likening the attrocity of war to fun fast cars then you may need to take a serious look at how you see the world around you.

As for telling people who are willing to make a joke about the people dying due to the present millitary world environment to 'Grow up' I promise it is the most restrained use of words I can use at present. I would like them to be stronger, and make no apology for the direct nature of them.

I have alerted the moderators and hopefully mine as well as a few others posts will be edited, so that the nature of this conversation will not be there for the long term.

[Lianachan]

As for telling people who are willing to make a joke about the people dying due to the present millitary world environment to 'Grow up' I promise it is the most restrained use of words I can use at present. I would like them to be stronger, and make no apology for the direct nature of them.


I wasn't making a joke about the present world environment - that's a bit of a large, and strange, assumption on your part. Did you look at the link at all? It's about woo-woo theories concerning Scotland - one of which relates to the use of lasers to make vitrified hillforts. It was an attempt to lighten the mood, and I thought you would have recognised it as such.

I am highly offended at being told to "grow up". Until that point, this thread had remained civil. My astonishment at your apparent decision to get personal and insulting is matched only by my astonishment that those who oppose this thread are doing the most posting in it.

[farmerjumperdon]

It was an analogy, not a likening. Another distinction you are missing. Where is this coming from?

[Fraser]

Yeah, I'm going to shut this thread down.

[antoniseb]

I have alerted the moderators and hopefully mine as well as a few others posts will be edited, so that the nature of this conversation will not be there for the long term.

Hi Jakenorrish, you were one of two recent people pointing this thread out to the moderator staff. I doubt we'll be editing this until the new rules are out, but I agree that this thread is looking like one with the potential to get very unfriendly. If it gets there, it will be locked for a while so people can cool off. Anythread that starts off with a "who's the best?" kind of question should expect some inflamed tempers.

At the moment however, I'm leaving the thread alone on the hopes that everyone participating will remember that it is important to keep a cool head.