It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What makes a world-class military?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
What makes a military "world-class?" Any examples?

Also, which military in the world today do you think can put up an effective fight against the U.S. military?

Anybody thinking about bashing (we're looking at you American Mad Man), please stay out.




posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
What makes a military "world-class?" Any examples?

Also, which military in the world today do you think can put up an effective fight against the U.S. military?

Anybody thinking about bashing (we're looking at you American Mad Man), please stay out.


well, there are different views, on it,

how strong is the destruction power?

most nuklear powers would be here the top militarys

how many soldiers can it afford?

china and india would be here the best ones

how modern are the armed forces?

western europe would be here the right ones



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Personally, I think that being a world class military depends opon training and individual skill level. That and technology really helps in the long run, however technology is useless without training. So I'm going to say if anybody could fight the US on the tactical level it's the UK. However at the strategic level it's hard to say, my money would be on Russia when it comes to strategic warfare.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
In the end it all comes down to money... if any other country had as much money as the U.S. then they would propably be just as advanced an capable.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I agree with beyondSciFi it really comes down to money and with enough anyone can have a world class military.

Peru could have a world class military if they had hundereds of billions they could pour into their military.

[edit on 19-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
in short: tech, numbers and will.

The technology of the Us, EU, China, Russia and japan. Those are the most advanced countries atm.

Numbers like China and other countries with allot of people.

Very important is will. If german soldiers still had the will to fight in the later stages of the war the allied advance could be slowed by a large ammount. Countries which have excellent will are Turkey and turkish people in general, iraq and iran to name a few.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
in short: tech, numbers and will.

The technology of the Us, EU, China, Russia and japan. Those are the most advanced countries atm.

Numbers like China and other countries with allot of people.

Very important is will. If german soldiers still had the will to fight in the later stages of the war the allied advance could be slowed by a large ammount. Countries which have excellent will are Turkey and turkish people in general, iraq and iran to name a few.


In military power US is no doubt strongest, but theres long history of their high expenditures compared to European countrys, Europeans have all potential for same growth, but US has worked as "our" umbrella for decades this has lead to our military expenditure figures fall and by so its easy to say we cannot be even near the high as US on those figures. Russia is very strong compredator when looking their military expenditure compared to GDP and archievements of their lower budget military programs. China is only slowly rising power that will eventually surpass US if same cash flow and growth to their land can continue for long, still its no doubt far away and to em gain strong power projection capabality is again another question as they share borders with India, Russia and sea with Japan, not to forget all the western navys, so how can China break trough this shackless to become military superpower?

Chinas power is as said only by numbers and 1 child policy with great numbers, with great expections. But rated by others methods its still very poor country compared to western countrys. Compare 100 Chinese to 100 Europeans and no doubt Europeans generally hold educational superior position.

Generally all countrys have people with strong will if ever invaded, it sounds totally logical cause you really have nothing to lose when your house and family are in danger. But those examples have all faced such situation and by so can be used as examples.

Germany didnt have change in WWII, its solid fact, how can country fight on its own soil when invaded in two fronts, no real industry left, if Germans would have continued fighting it would have only lead to more deaths. But eventually they lost of course you can speculate how they lost, would Germany gone in two pieces if they fought with their nails and teeth or stayed as one.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
This is a very broad topic . To have a world class military you to have the capablity to fight fight differnt kinds of war convental, guerilla and peace keeping. A world class military also needs to be able to influence air & sea power. Money dosnt equal quality or buy you a world class military.
Aspects of the US military are world class.

The ablity to fight a convental war by using large amounts of fire power the US military excels at this.
The ablity to fight a guerilla war this is a chink in the armour of the US military this is due to the fact that the US military has a mentality that is set in stone its almost as if they dont think outside the square and dont know how to interact with local populations.
The USAF has been unchallenged when was the last time the USAF was in a dogfight? In a "ground attack" role the USAF excels at this.
The US navy has been unchallenged they excel at rocking up on someones door step and having there carries lanuch American air power.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I think the following factors (in order of importance) make a world class military. Presenting SC's hierarcy of an army.

1. Ideology: No ones gonna join your army if they dont like what your defending/attacking!
3. Financing: Food, housing and of couse weapons it all costs $£.
2. Training: If they join the military they gotta know how to fight, as these wars of ours arnt won by robots...yet

4. Tech: RPK vs bow and arrow, chariot vs challenger 2...you get yes.
5. Logistics: Gotta get to your war and supply it.

Applying these you can see why some armys are good and some arnt. You can also see why some work when you wouldnt think they would.
US/Europe: v good all round so they do well.
Russia: Low money and training so it slips up and is not the power its tech could enable it to be.
Iraq (former): oops non of the above so in the bin with you.
China: lack tech/logistics but good for others so success unless you vs a high tech country that forfills the above criteria, also it connot project itself to other continents.
Al-Quieda: Actually forfills all the criteria rather well in its own way hense the success global terrorism and insurgency can have vs conventional military forces. i.e. Chechnya/iraq/israel etc



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Keeping It Simple

There are many different ways to define "world-class military", and it's fun to look at facts and figures, but I like to keep my definitions simple.

So here's mine:

A world-class military is one which wins wars.

In my opinion, the rest is just so much chin music.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
lol yes thats works well too.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   
A world class military is one that puts defence of the nation as it's paramount goal and is not seduced into offensive conflicts and wars that truly do not directly endager one's nation.

I would have to say Japan and EU are exemplary in these respects, though Japan seems to becoming seduced to the dark side of the force, as the JSDF seems to be moving closer back to a military that is not just a purely defensive one.

Well those I think are the best one's based on ideals, but in terms of brute force and power projection the US kicks ass, though they can't make aesthetically pleasing equipment.

In terms of strategic power Russia is a power with a large nuclear capability, though their military has maintenance and equipment issues. Russia time and time again makes very cool looking gear that's easy on the eyes (su-30 is awesome).

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
One that's ready to defend its own Country and has the years of research to produce the weaponary to defend it. A Country that minds its business and works with world wide governments to workout sound defensive relationships.

A Country that works with the UN Security Council and does not try to own it. Seems to me there's been a good lesson made lately of my-way-or-the-highway types. Being the super power is one thing, bragging is another.
Dallas



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
What makes a world-class military?

Firstly, you have to look at a key area of any Military: budget.

While you’re able to argue that America spends the most on its Military (419billion, this coming fiscal year.) I do believe that American wages in this area also happen to be a lot higher. But somewhere like China has say 30million, but this money goes a lot further then it would in America or other parts of the world.

So, although one Nation might spend more we have to remember how much ‘buying power’ this money actually gives them - but also how much money they’d be able to push into Military during times of war.

You then need to look at the key Military areas; technology, Navy, Air Force, Army, Special Forces, Counter Intelligence and Home Land Security/Ability to defend Nation from threats.

Technology; it’s arguable that America has the best technology. But, with the fact they share it to Europe (Britain) and Israel, it’s on the ‘open market’ for others to get access too. After all, Israel sold American technology to other Nations before. (China if I remember correctly.) On the other hand, Nations such as China and India tend to buy a lot of other Nations equipment and then either A) Cheaply make it or B) Make advancements upon it. Costing them in turn a lot less money.

Another problem, is the fact some Nations do not openly share their technology - so nobody knows what they truthfully can do. But also, a lot of Western Nations tend to run years behind on new technology. (The PAC-3 for example.)

Navy: With the new European battle groups, they could possible have access to the best Navy. Especially with America decreasing its budget into the Navy. (I posted the link in another article I wrote.) Although, I’d argue that China has the best fleet of Submarines and with the Russian Zubr they have the best hovercraft. As for Air Craft carriers, this would go to America - but they need to sort out the problems they have with the ‘ghetto’ culture that happen to be on these larger ships.

Air Force: This one, I’m not overly sure on. America does have some of the best Aircraft with the F-117A and the F22 Raptor, but with the downing of the F-117A it’s possible Russia now have access to the ‘innards’ of this machine and with the S-400 coming out this year and the S-500 in 2012, it’s possible they might be able to easily spot the F-117 Stealth Bomber. Causing a large problem in the American Air Forces ability to attack any Nation that has bought this anti-air weapon.

Army: This, to me has to go to any Nation that can pump out the most soldiers. End of the day, you can give them a gun that has better accuracy, range, etc, but if you’re out numbered ten tanks, or twenty soldiers to one you need a miracle.

Special Forces: This can only be done on how many missions they have done and the success rate, but nearly every Nations Special Force are good. No matter what people think. They’re the best of the best, in that country.

Counter Intelligence: America/Europe, have probably the best CIS (Counter Intelligence Services) due to the fact they share information freely. ( a lot more so then other nations do.) But also the fact they put so much more money into it, then any other Country.

Home Land Security/Ability to defend Nation from threats: This has to come down to A) Air Defence, B) Missile Defence, C) Police Powers and D) Individual rights.

America, has one of the better Air Defence systems, with NORAD, but they’re lacking in Missile Defence, with the PAC-3 still not working. Russia, on the other hand have a good Missile and Air Defence system, with the S-400 and if Iran’s invaded, we’ll find out how good this actually is.

Police in America, are on record of being a bit ‘gun ho‘, but same goes for China, Russia and India, as well as most nations. America and Europe, do arguable have the best rights for the individual but this can cause them to be easy targets for terrorism.

Other: You also need to look at a Nation’s allies and also how effective they are + if they're a true ally and not one by name only.
--

All I could think of.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Good Stuff Odiun
I agree on most points.
However I dont believe china has what i would refer to as a top quality submarine fleet, while it has amassed a fair number of vessels they are mostly russian cast offs. The indiginous vessels lack the latest high technology and sound dampening techniques built into the latest vessels of the west/russia, also they have suffered propulsion problems and other technical issues. Chinas pride is most certainly its ground forces.
Also numbers are not as important in modern warfare as the equipment the troops use. If i was given a better weapons say an M1A1/chally/T-90 and told to go up against a greater number of T-62's i would win. This was proven best in WW1 where one man with a machine gun could potentially kill hundreds!



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
fas.org...

That has some good information on it, about the PLAN Submarine Force. Give me a while and I'll reply as to why I think they have such a good Navy.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
The only thing that matters in combat is the will to fight for a cause that you are willing to die for.

Budgets are irrelevant when you don't need to be paid.

Equipment can be salvaged and used.

War is fought by the will of the people.

Key examples.
1. Chinese Communists overthrow the Nationalists who had all kinds of American Weaponary that ended up in Mao's hands.
2. The Russians beating Hitlers forces in WW2.
3. Vietnam Vs US
4. The Korean War



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
rapier28 You make a very good point.

Vietnam was a classic example money didnt buy the americans victory. Vietnam also showed that the yanks were far from world class when it came to jungle warfare.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Thanks


---

Having said that though, the American military in Iraq i think showed that it can handle conventional desert warfare really well.

There is just a question mark on the will of the American military to often fight engagements that even some in the US feel is unnessersary. It must be hard when only 50% of your country back you consistently.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Yes please do elaborate why the PLAN is a good navy..
IMO they are a good defensive force but lack any notable conventional offensive capability..



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join