Top 10 Best Modern Militaries/Armed Forces

Nuclear weapons are a status symbol only. Russia and China keeps bringing them up to compensate for a lack in conventional capability. No one is going to use them first knowing the other side will return fire. It's kind of being locked in a room with someone and your only weapon is a grenade how do you use it?
 
You can edit your posts dude. No need to write 5 in a row.
 
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.


The 27 EU nations are more than a match for a conflict with either Russia or China. Their defense budget is more than twice Russia's and larger than China's.
 
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]


How do you account for Russia having so much trouble with Georgia? Have you read the stories of Russia having to gang pressed to fill there military numbers? Which countries can Russia count on in a conflict?
 
http://www.globalfirepower.com/ -as the name suggest [sry cant post links yet :<]
http://nationranking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/2011-npi/ - national power index. Note that theres a joint Eu included down in this page.
Now, theres a term "overkill capacity" which basically is how many times can i destroy the whole Earth with my nukes. Overkill capacity of 1 was reached in 50s or 60s, cant remember exactly.
The problem with the nuke is that sooner or later the someone inappropriate(mad!) is gonna lay hands on it, therefore a antinuclear missile shield would be a good thing to have ( thanks Obama for abandoning the plans).
@Circe. You dont use the grenade but no one severely attacks you either.
 
The 27 EU nations are more than a match for a conflict with either Russia or China. Their defense budget is more than twice Russia's and larger than China's.

No national unity, chain of command, little actual interest from individual member states, disparate languages amongst the members of the military, member states accustomed to little participation in war (excluding the UK)...

I would trust more in the British and Germany militaries alone than in the pell-mell confederation of Europe as a whole.
 
Unless you are a suicide bomber...

Insurgent tactics only work on weak, civilized people, unwilling to win wars without conscience. See how the Zealots (the original suicide bombers) fared against the Romans.

All modern militaries, with the exception of China and potentially some aspects of Russia, are hamstringed by internationalist moral concerns. The US would never flatten a country absent a nuclear strike.
 
http://www.globalfirepower.com/ -as the name suggest [sry cant post links yet :<]
http://nationranking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/2011-npi/ - national power index. Note that theres a joint Eu included down in this page.
Now, theres a term "overkill capacity" which basically is how many times can i destroy the whole Earth with my nukes. Overkill capacity of 1 was reached in 50s or 60s, cant remember exactly.
The problem with the nuke is that sooner or later the someone inappropriate(mad!) is gonna lay hands on it, therefore a antinuclear missile shield would be a good thing to have ( thanks Obama for abandoning the plans).
@Circe. You dont use the grenade but no one severely attacks you either.

A small nuclear stockpile wouldn't be sufficient to really hurt the US. The US is too big and their targets too spread out to be hit by a stockpile of one or two devices. MOreover, if they used it on the US, they can be sure that they will be annihilated. US policy is to respond to all nuclear attacks with annihilation of the country.

Say if Iran launched a nuke on US forces. The Iranian plateau would be the largest open market for land on the cheap a year later.
 
No national unity, chain of command, little actual interest from individual member states, disparate languages amongst the members of the military, member states accustomed to little participation in war (excluding the UK)...

I would trust more in the British and Germany militaries alone than in the pell-mell confederation of Europe as a whole.

I agree the union of european countries has never had their resolve tested but isn't that saying something in itself? Their common foe Russia has never attracted any of there countries and has exhibited anger over Finland's leaning toward NATO, same with Georgia and the Ukrain. if a conflict did break out I feel certain Russia would be the aggressor and the EU would stand together.
 
Insurgent tactics only work on weak, civilized people, unwilling to win wars without conscience. See how the Zealots (the original suicide bombers) fared against the Romans.

All modern militaries, with the exception of China and potentially some aspects of Russia, are hamstringed by internationalist moral concerns. The US would never flatten a country absent a nuclear strike.

The US is not so much worried about a ICBM but a device in the back of a U Haul truck or the trunk of an automobile
 
I agree the union of european countries has never had their resolve tested but isn't that saying something in itself? Their common foe Russia has never attracted any of there countries and has exhibited anger over Finland's leaning toward NATO, same with Georgia and the Ukrain. if a conflict did break out I feel certain Russia would be the aggressor and the EU would stand together.

I don't think so. Most Europeans are ill-inclined to war to begin with, and unless the Russians were rushing the borders of European countries with tank columns, they might just try endless bouts of "diplomacy".

Consider how weak Europe's "objections" to Russian aggression has been in the past.
 
The US is not so much worried about a ICBM but a device in the back of a U Haul truck or the trunk of an automobile

Yes. Which is why Iran is such a threat if they do get nuclear weapons, or if Pakistan were to completely fall to the Islamists. The justified fear here is that these countries would then give those weapons to terrorists who could attack with the methods you mentioned.

However, I do believe that if anything of that sort ever happened to the US, the result would be the destruction of several Islamic states in retaliation. Iran, for instance, would be destroyed.
 
Yes. Which is why Iran is such a threat if they do get nuclear weapons, or if Pakistan were to completely fall to the Islamists. The justified fear here is that these countries would then give those weapons to terrorists who could attack with the methods you mentioned.

However, I do believe that if anything of that sort ever happened to the US, the result would be the destruction of several Islamic states in retaliation. Iran, for instance, would be destroyed.

They very well may be the end result, but damm, I hate to think of NYC or similar with 13 plus million people dead/dying/injured to provoke the retaliation

I wish I were wise enough to see the answer, I have seen war and even though it was from at altitude, I was privy to our BDA's and it was ugly, very very ugly

There are no winners in war
 
Helo

My frnds wars r not fought with weapons its still the man behind the gun theory. If it were to be fought with weapons and technology America wld hv won a long time ago in Afghanistan. But they r still fighting a lost cause.


And now fr u guys who r concerned with Pakistan nuclear weapons dont worry abt it cause its in safe hands. As Pakistan has one of the best military in the world which was proved when we won the cambrian patrol defeating US and the european countries. So dont wry these nukes wont be getting in the wrong hands fr all of whom u r concerned so badly.
 
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

Wrong post
 
My frnds wars r not fought with weapons its still the man behind the gun theory. If it were to be fought with weapons and technology America wld hv won a long time ago in Afghanistan. But they r still fighting a lost cause.


And now fr u guys who r concerned with Pakistan nuclear weapons dont worry abt it cause its in safe hands. As Pakistan has one of the best military in the world which was proved when we won the cambrian patrol defeating US and the european countries. So dont wry these nukes wont be getting in the wrong hands fr all of whom u r concerned so badly.

My friend, the "man behind the gun theory" has long since been replaced by the "computer behind the iron" concept

Your reference to Pakistan winning a small exercise of grunts has little to do with the "power" of a country.

I open Pandora's Box here, but in your simplicity you say the US is incapable of defeating Pakistan or Afghanistan (Should the US actually resolve to fight the country and not a few terrorists) in a shooting war should that occur?

My my, I realize we all are xenophobic and would admit USA would have a hard time, possibly be defeated by the likes of China in an all out war, North Korea or Russia in a ground only scenario (Where the air power mysteriously disappears) on their turf, but Pakistan?

Is that what they really teach you?
 
Dude as they say
"u cant defeat an enemy who sees paradise in the barrel of ur gun"
thts the same thing with the ppl of Afghanistan and Pakistan. US cant win the war in Afghanistan. Let me give u an example on average a US solider wear gear of almost 4500$ while a taliban militant wear gear of 100-150$ but US still suffering.

Dont be arrogant on the technology and ur power bcoz u dont knw the real power of Pakistan. wars r not won by hving the most advanced jets,ships,tanks,subs,helicopters but r won by men. if US dared attked then they will suffer the most in their history. bcoz evey men r women of this country will die fr his/her country is it the same fr US? so again i say wars r not won by guns but with men........
 
Dude as they say

Dont be arrogant on the technology and ur power bcoz u dont knw the real power of Pakistan. wars r not won by hving the most advanced jets,ships,tanks,subs,helicopters but r won by men. if US dared attked then they will suffer the most in their history. bcoz evey men r women of this country will die fr his/her country is it the same fr US? so again i say wars r not won by guns but with men........


That's the advantage of "by hving the most advanced jets,ships,tanks,subs,helicopters" Every man, woman and child in your country does not have to die, we take it to the fools who would attack us and destroy their infrastructure (If they have one)

I don't advocate the current US policy, simply being lazy and stupid this morning responding to a clueless *****, please feel free to delete this post without harm as it is a waste of time
 
Dude as they say
"u cant defeat an enemy who sees paradise in the barrel of ur gun"
thts the same thing with the ppl of Afghanistan and Pakistan. US cant win the war in Afghanistan. Let me give u an example on average a US solider wear gear of almost 4500$ while a taliban militant wear gear of 100-150$ but US still suffering.

Dont be arrogant on the technology and ur power bcoz u dont knw the real power of Pakistan. wars r not won by hving the most advanced jets,ships,tanks,subs,helicopters but r won by men. if US dared attked then they will suffer the most in their history. bcoz evey men r women of this country will die fr his/her country is it the same fr US? so again i say wars r not won by guns but with men........

You have to differentiate between an "attack" and a specific mission to accomplish a task. the US attacked Japan, we performed a mission taking out Bin Laden



If the USA or Great Britain looked at human life as cheaply as the Taliban or certain other cultures, didn't care about collateral damage, one 500 foot steel tube located somewhere in the tens of thousands of square miles of the Indian Ocean would go to launch condition and less than 20 minutes later over 200 big rocks in Afghanistan or Pakistan would be turned into shiny smooth glass

Why would the US "attack" Pakistan/Afghanistan, why would it not be P/A attacking the US? How would the P/A forces get their shock troops to the US, how would they control the sea lanes
, how would thier AF provide CAP or ground support?

You simply talk of scenarios where the US foolishly tries to ferret scared old men out of caves, a lesson I thought we had learned 45 years ago but apparently no

I will agree the US will and does have a terrible time digging out the rats, but to think the Pakistani's or Afghanis' could sustain an all out war with a major power is laughable

Don’t a lot of the opium poppies come from around your home?
 

This thread has been viewed 703861 times.

Back
Top