It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


5 Strongest Armies in the World

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:39 PM

Originally posted by ArcPeter
Also article claims that Russia posses "exclusive" weapon system[s] TOPOL-M2(ballistic missle) and advanced weapons such as ISKANDER(tactical missle), S-400(AA missle system), T-90 tank, SU-30 fighter, "GEPARD" nuclear sub, antiship missles "MOSQUIT" and "SHKVAL".

This is actually quite humorous.
It is humorous because "exclusive" is deceptive and ambiguous.
"Exclusive" is relative, and in the applied case, the article fails to mention the US's exclusive weapon systems, or the Brits, French, Chinese, German, Israeli, etc. exclusive weapon systems.

Btw, has Russia yet produced an indigenous personal computer which is readily available to the Russian general public? In the words of Gorbachev himself: "The Russian economy is in a mess, we're behind in every area...the closer you look, the worse it is."--Graham T. Allison, "Testing Gorbachev," Foreign Affairs 67 (Fall, 1988), p.18.


posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 11:03 PM
I think the GEPARD is the latest Akula II sub in the Russian Navy.

And my point about Russia not helping other states;well the only instance that I knew of where Russia came "close" to providing military assistance to a non-warsaw pact-type state was this:

Indo-Pak War 71':

The United States supported Pakistan both politically and materially. U.S. President Richard Nixon denied getting involved in the situation, saying that it was an internal matter of Pakistan. But when Pakistan's defeat seemed certain, Nixon sent the USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal, a move deemed by the Indians as a nuclear threat [1]. Enterprise arrived on station on December 11, 1971.

Several documents released from the Nixon Presidential Archives[1] show the extent of the tilt that the Nixon Administration demonstrated in favor of Pakistan. Among them, the infamous Blood telegram from the US embassy in Dacca, East Pakistan, stated the horrors of genocide taking place in East Pakistan. [2] Notwithstanding this, Nixon, backed by Henry Kissinger, wanted to protect the interests of Pakistan as they were apprehensive of India. Archer Blood was promptly transferred out of Dacca. As revealed in the newly declassified transcripts released by the US State Department[3], President Nixon was using the Pakistanis to normalize relations with China[4]. This would have three important effects, viz., opening rifts between the Soviet Union, China and North Vietnam, opening the potentially huge Chinese market to American business and creating a foreign policy coup in time to win the 1972 Presidential Elections. Since Nixon believed the existence of Pakistan to be critical to the success of his term he went to great lengths to protect his ally. In direct violation of the US Congress imposed sanctions on Pakistan, Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan and routed them through Jordan and the Shah-ruled Iran[5].

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations George H. W. Bush branded the Indian action as "aggression" at the time and took up the matter in the UN Security Council. The United States became apprehensive that should Pakistan's armed forces in the east collapse, India would transfer its forces from there to attack West Pakistan, which was an ally in the Central Treaty Organization. This was confirmed in official British secret transcripts declassified in 2003 [6] President Richard Nixon also showed a tilt towards Pakistan despite widespread condemnation of the dictatorship even amongst his administration, as Oval Office records show. Henry Kissinger, the U.S. National Security Advisor, wanted China to attack India for this purpose. As a gesture of solidarity, on 10 September 1971, an American task force headed by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was dispatched from the Gulf of Tonkin to the Bay of Bengal. On 6 December and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles, from Vladivostok; they trailed U.S. Task Force 74 in the Indian Ocean from 18 December until 7 January 1972.


Interesting aye?!
India and the US were at the brink of war then!And they were even thinking of using China against India to stop India from over running West Pakistan at the time! How times change!!

Ohh the "what ifs" just keep multiplying in my head!!

[edit on 1-3-2006 by Daedalus3]

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:21 AM
Dude, what age do you live in, the stone age?? The PLA doesn't use AK47
LOL, they ues QBZ, search it up.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:24 AM
I am 100% positive the figures for the submarines are way over-exaggerated. Im quite sure China has a sub force of around 60-80 while US has 70 or so.

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:41 AM
it would be 60-70 submarines now

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:14 AM
Why is everyone talking like the AK-47 is a sub-standard weapon??!

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by denythestatusquo

dude ,i dont know whether u r a u.s citzen ,but tell me one thing this u.s has been living and feeding on wars only, why should not other countries attack this country for there feed

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 02:53 AM
if any war was declared wouldnt countries be choosing sides based on self intrest alone?

aka India and its historical ties with Iran and the need for more resources
didnt the Indian leader even say that the US has no place to dicate how india runs its relations with others?

even their ties with China are improving

also China has the US by the throat by holding its debt
who needs war when you can destroy a country using the econemy.

also when did Iran get 25+ nukes

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:57 PM
i read all of the posts and not on of u mentioned the British Army...

They're the best trained and disciplined army in the world, they may lack in technology and stuff but they enuf to win a war!


posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 08:56 AM
The Uk by far has the best army in the world followed by The USA and then China

posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 02:31 AM

posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 03:38 AM
reply to post by Daedalus3

Um because it's been around ever since they copied the German design in WWII

Besides Kalashnikov has much newer weapons available

And I third the motion the sub numbers seem way off


posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:51 PM
Indian army uses its own weapons.....certainly dont take it from china.....India has some planes from russia.......the indian soldier is the toughest.......they have trained to survive without food and all luxuries of life.......

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:48 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Its sub standard because its been around so long?

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
i read all of the posts and not on of u mentioned the British Army...

They're the best trained and disciplined army in the world, they may lack in technology and stuff but they enuf to win a war!


Not according to the generals running the war(s) we are currently fighting....

Also when did England get a nuclear arsenal? Did the BNP perform a coup overnight?

And Dadelues 3 , you know better mate than to try and talk sense into a person that says the AK is sub standard. I mean come on...the whole it can fire after being run over by a tank thing speaks for itself....

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:50 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

I know things are better now, but the UK almost lost the Falklands war. If they didn't have Russian satellite data (stolen by the Norwegians), or if some of those French missiles hadn't failed, they would have lost.

This was in part due to the large military drawdowns in the 1970s.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:42 AM

I think the Ships and the Subs got interchanged in that list, but then I could be wrong!.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:56 AM
So the 5 strongest armies in the world...


I would place China, India, South Korea, Germany, Switzerland and Taiwan not far behind... all could have nuclear weapons in less than a year if they wanted. Is Australia army strong?

Israel is strong, but the population is too little and the territory too small. So I don't know if I would place it in the 5 strongest...

[edit on 29-6-2008 by Vitchilo]

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:57 AM
reply to post by denythestatusquo

I dont agree with this point as there are four countries in the world world develpoed the weapon by themselves: USA, Russia, China, India.

I dont have any updated info about the Russia, But I can strongly adminitted that in Asia , India has all the things to compare as well maintained Army and weopens like automatic power.

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 03:03 PM
Military Rankings

1 United States
2 Russia
3 China
4 India
5 Germany
6 France
7 Japan
8 Turkey
9 Brazil
10 Great Britain
11 Italy
12 South Korea
13 Indonesia
14 Mexico
15 Canada
16 Iran
17 Egypt
18 North Korea
19 Spain
20 Pakistan
21 Australia
22 Saudi Arabia
23 Thailand
24 Argentina
25 Sweden
26 Israel
27 Greece
28 Taiwan
29 Syria
30 Philippines
31 Poland
32 Ukraine
33 Norway
34 Iraq
35 Libya
36 Venezuela
37 Lebanon
38 Nepal
39 Afghanistan

Nuclear weapons, past and present military experience, training and equipment quality are not taken into account.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in