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.

 

5 Strongest Armies in the World

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   
the strongeest army is USA. we can kick anyone's ass. even if you combine all other countries.




posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by denythestatusquo
 

Yup most of the Indian weapons and fighter aircraft are natively from Russia while the US provides India with Radio Active technology and material for Nukes.
Its seems like theres a silent war going on between Russia and US to win India over cause soon its most likely going to be the next superpower of the world after Russia and US and thus an important ally incase these countries try thier hands at an another World War!!



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
One always has to be careful with assuming that the "strongest" means anything in warfare. After all, history shows us that the strongest does not always mean the best for a specific conflict.

Remember the Russian invasion of Finland in the 1930s.
Remember the vastly outnumbered British forces in the Falklands.

Not to mention the effectiveness of irregular forces like the Viet Cong, the Iraqi insurgents and (as the British, then the Russians and then the Nato forces discovered) the Afghan tribesman.

Napoleon said something like (anyone have the actual quote please post it) "I'd rather have a company of battle tested veterans rather than a corps of untrained volunteers, no matter how enthusiastic."

The only real use of these size estimates is to lobby governments to spend more on defense.



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by metamagic
One always has to be careful with assuming that the "strongest" means anything in warfare. After all, history shows us that the strongest does not always mean the best for a specific conflict.

Remember the Russian invasion of Finland in the 1930s.
Remember the vastly outnumbered British forces in the Falklands.

Not to mention the effectiveness of irregular forces like the Viet Cong, the Iraqi insurgents and (as the British, then the Russians and then the Nato forces discovered) the Afghan tribesman.

Napoleon said something like (anyone have the actual quote please post it) "I'd rather have a company of battle tested veterans rather than a corps of untrained volunteers, no matter how enthusiastic."

The only real use of these size estimates is to lobby governments to spend more on defense.
I don't get why people keep bringing up Afghanistan, Russia didn't loose that war in military terms.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by 121200]



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 


My post had nothing to do with winning or losing, since I am not convinced one can with clear conscience apply those terms to the wholesale slaughter of people.

I pointed out that measures of "strength" in terms of umbers of guns and tanks and soldiers doesn't translate historically into an ability to predict their effectiveness.

And as for winning a military conflict, it appears that no matter what the outcome, you can find a set of criteria that the outcome met that you can define as "winning." In other words, winning a war is always an attempt to retroactively find some reason that justifies all that suffering and carnage.




[edit on 27-11-2008 by metamagic]



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Russia "lost" in Afganistan primarily due to troops getting sick. At least half of all their casualties were from illness. The illnesses ranged from those carried by flea bites, to sickness spread by their own food services.

Old Army saying, the forces that run out of ammo first, lose the battle. That would be true for any vital supplies, like food, fuel and medical supplies. Example is China, they don't have fuel for more than about 3 weeks of combat.

Wars are won with logistics,intelligence, deception, and strength.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


pakistan is not jus gonna sit by and loss the game. besides Pakistan and China have really good dealing terms. any war between pak and india will probably lead to WW3 as pakistan is a close ally of both USA and China



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ArcPeter
 



Geez! The USA has 26,000 tanks and 44,000 armored personnel carriers? This is CRAZY!

Yes, I believe in DEFENSE but not in WAR! Why not reduce the dead weight of those tanks to about 2-3 Armored Brigades, with 1,000 tanks each? Then if those irrepressible Mexicans keep crossing our 1,950 miles long southern border we can chase them across the desert? Defense.

I don’t give a hoot what the Russians have. They are teetering on fiscal bankruptcy and as usual, the Russians are full of their inferiority complex inspired braggadocio! Their reach exceeds their grasp!

China’s Army looks more like our Boy Scouts than a regular fighting force. It is 45% for internal order - riot police - and 55% to keep the Beijing Branch of the Chinese Communist Party in power. By 2010 that Army may no longer be able to deter the Shanghai Branch from TAKING OVER. OR China may split into two parts. The SC Congressman said it once, “Money talks, B-S walks!” I am pretty sure China has given up on Taiwan and is playing a waiting game with Chiang’s grand-children. Taiwan will join up when the last one dies off.

I believe you got it backwards with your ship and submarine numbers. In any case we have 4 X the number of subs any rational person would want. And we cannot any longer afford such a waste of brain power and money resources. How much better to spend it on education for GOD’s sake, Americans must be the DUMBEST people on the planet? All those weapons and not one dam enemy worthy of us. Heck, it's 7 years on and we can't catch Osama bin Laden. We need to END the bogus War on Terror and hire more FBI to catch ObL.

On nuclear bombs or weapons. I WISH we had ONLY 6,600. I fear that is the GOAL down from 45,000 which we have slowed the dismantling to a turtles pace. We really have got ourselves into a PICKLE of a meas. Atom bomb speaking. And entirely of our own making.

We first allowed Israel - maybe even supplied the plutonium - to GO nuclear. That was Mistake No. 1. Then we allowed India to GO nuclear. That was Mistake No. 2. Then we allowed Pakistan to GO nuclear. That was SUPER Mistake No. 3. When - not IF - the Taliban takes over in Islamabad we may supremely regret that stupidity in real terms. Q. How much damage would a 200 kiloton nuke planted at the top of the Washington Monument do?

Just like we have “dumbly” walked away from the ABM Treaty, we also disregarded the NPT treaty whenever we perceived it meshed with what passes for American foreign policy.

Hosea 8:1 - "They Sow the Wind, and Reap the Whirlwind" KJV


PS. I do not believe NK has more than 10 nuclear DEVICES of which none may be in a deliverable weapon form. And I do not believe Iran has ANY nuclear devices. Yet. But we are practicing IDIOTS as it comes to Iran. RF to its north has NWs. Pakistan to its east has NWs and India to its south has NWs and Israel to its WEST has NWs. PLUS the US has acted like a dumb donkey lost in the desert in dealing with Iran. Whatever happens to the world, NW way, is a gratis of the US to the World.

PPS. There is a new book that shows how close the world came to a nuclear holocaust in 1962. "1 Minute To Midnight" by Michael Dobbs. Want to scare your kids? Have them play like Bush43 had been president in 1962 and not JFK. Even atheists are thanking GOD.

[edit on 11/28/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 




One has to be careful with assuming that the "strongest" means anything in warfare . . history shows that the strongest does not always mean the best for a specific conflict. Remember the Russian invasion of Finland in the 1930s. Not to mention the effectiveness of irregular forces like the Viet Cong, the Iraqi insurgents and the Afghan tribesman . . The only real use of these size estimates is to lobby governments to spend more on defense



Broadcasting your “opponents” size is probably used mainly to coerce the taxpaying public. The various governments are the ones “doing” the MIC thing - military industrial complex. Hopefully when talking about our side, we are aware of not only of size but more importantly of capability. Hello Afghan! I know the Chinese PLA is large but I also believe it is almost entirely trained in how to maintain internal order and political coherence. Union busters, in other words.




Napoleon said something like (anyone have the actual quote please post it) "I'd rather have a company of battle tested veterans rather than a corps of untrained volunteers, no matter how enthusiastic."



That’s a truism! Recall the Battle of New Orleans. The closest quote I could find from Napoleon was “ . . a French officer said: "They [the English] are the finest infantry in Europe but fortunately there are only a few of them." Later, Napoleon gave a warning to Germany: "It would be a good thing . . lacking regular troops which were unable to resist our eagles, entertain the sublime idea of arming the masses, [if you] could see . . obstacles which this resource can offer to regular troops." www.cooper.edu...



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by ArcPeter
 





I don’t give a hoot what the Russians have. They are teetering on fiscal bankruptcy and as usual, the Russians are full of their inferiority complex inspired braggadocio! Their reach exceeds their grasp!

The U.S. Gov/Mil cares very much what Russia has, if they didn't they woudn't complain so much when Russia is about to sell some weapons to a nation, so people are always using that tired old argument about Rus tittering on bankrupsy, when the facts are 100% not true.







On nuclear bombs or weapons. I WISH we had ONLY 6,600. I fear that is the GOAL down from 45,000 which we have slowed the dismantling to a turtles pace. We really have got ourselves into a PICKLE of a meas. Atom bomb speaking. And entirely of our own making.

The max nuke weapons the U.S. had was just over 25k, while Rus had 39k, get your facts straight before posting.





Just like we have “dumbly” walked away from the ABM Treaty, we also disregarded the NPT treaty whenever we perceived it meshed with what passes for American foreign policy.

In your previouse posy you said you don't care what Rus has, well the ABM you talk about the U.S. "Dumbly" left the Russians have NOT left, and the have the lagest most advanced ABM system in the world, but it dosen't matter what they have right smart guy.







[edit on 11/28/2008 by donwhite]


[edit on 28-11-2008 by 121200]

[edit on 28-11-2008 by 121200]

[edit on 28-11-2008 by 121200]



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 121200
 




The U.S. Gov/Mil cares very much what Russia has, if they didn't they wouldn’t complain so much when Russia is about to sell some weapons to a nation, so people are always using that tired old argument about Rus tittering on bankrupts, when the facts are 100% not true.



That’s mainly a business consideration. The US is the world’s No. 1 weapons (of mass destruction) supplier - measured in dollars - and we don’t want any competition. Security is a NON issue iMO. It’s got nothing to do with Russia invading Poland or Iran. And it is no longer a Communist bloc versus a capitalist bloc. It’s just plain making money on selling MISERY.




The max nuke weapons the U.S. had was just over 25k, while Rus had 39k . .



I really don’t know how we can “know” all this nuclear weapons count stuff. I have not tried but I doubt I can call the DoE’s 800 number and get the number of nuclear warheads we have. I’m dead sure Israel will not answer my call and I doubt the Kremlin will either.




. . the ABM you talk about the U.S. "Dumbly" left the Russians have NOT left, and the have the largest most advanced ABM system in the world, but it doesn’t matter what they have . .



Not really. Back when we entered into the ABM treaty under Nixon I believe, it was agreed the US and USSR could choose ONE of 2 sites to defend against ballistic missiles. The national capital or a missile launch site. For show and not go, the Ruskies choose Moscow. telstarlogistics.typepad.com...

We OTOH, choose to defend launch sites in the upper mid-west centered around Malmstrom AFB, Montana. There are more than 2,000 missile sites spread across the United States. Malmstrom Air Force Base had twenty Minuteman II Launch Control Facilities housing solid fuel missiles underground. From November 7, 1975.
www.globalsecurity.org...

SDI - Ronnie Reagan's great Star Wars dream and taxpayers nightmare - is just a giant technological make-work project. A/K/A a boondoggle. Much like the disdained EARMARKS. But it’s like Area 51, if you BELIEVE then there is no discussion needed. And I rank SDI as equal to but no better than UFOs.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ZPE StarPilot
 
I'm not sure whether the Chinese have only 3 weeks of fuel for war. But during the Korean War, the chinese have only a week of anything, strapped to their back, and see how far they went.. something like three years in mostly forward advancment.

Further, China is primary a land force, and their foot soldiers can cover a distance in mountain terrain at 91km a day. As shown during the earthquake episode at sichuan. The weather was so bad that helicopters can't fly, tanks and terrain vehicles cannot travel due to landslides and collapse bridges.. They also were also able to deploy 100,000 men in 24 hours in the slightly remote region. Portable SAMs and ATMs are readily available to them to deter, harass or slows the enemie's air raids and armour movement. Even further, the more the enemies enter the interior, their supplies and reinforcements will be harassed, which is part of China's tactics for centuries. China is no desert. Probably you will expect Kamakazi 10X. East Asian fights wars differently.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
those statistics are way off since i noticed one had china as number one for something. that is a total lie I am a real american and it is a known fact we are number 1!!!! the only thing china is number 1 in is eating cats.

Lets get real we got the bombs so it doesnt matter anyway anyone messes with us and were gonna nuke them back to the stone ages and reign liberty from the skies!



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by tigpoppa
 




I am a real American and it is a known fact we are number 1! The only thing china is number 1 in is eating cats. Lets get real we got the bombs so it doesn’t matter anyway anyone messes with us and were gonna nuke them back to the stone ages and rain liberty from the skies!



I thought China was first in eating dogs. I read the CP ordered dogs taken off the Beijing restaurant menus during the Olympics.

On atom bombs and recreating the stone age.
In 1968,General Curtis LeMay became convinced that Nixon planned to pursue a conciliatory policy with the Soviets and to accept nuclear parity rather than retain America's first strike supremacy. This led him to support George Wallace's Independent Party, which advocated a strong military and to accept the second spot as his running mate. The General was dismayed to find himself attacked in the press as a segregationist . . indeed, LeMay had been a strong advocate for desegregating the armed forces . . “ en.wikipedia.org...-military

One problem the loose use of nukes advocates never face is the prevailing winds. Those mighty engines of climate blow from west to east in the Northern hemisphere. Whatever radioactive fallout is created in China will be contaminating America perhaps 7-10 days later, depending on the time of year and speed of the Jet Stream.

Back in those halcyon days of MAD - mutually assured destruction - we discussed (briefly) whether we should build a Dooms Day bomb. The Dooms Day bomb would be a massive hydrogen bomb - 25 megatons - wrapped in layers of cobalt. This bomb would be stored in a safe place inside your own country. The last man standing - and just before he dies of radiation poisoning - would fall on the switch thereby creating a massive cloud of radioactive fallout that would ultimately encircle the whole earth, killing all known living organicisms. About 2 years out.

Reminiscent of "On The Beach" a 1959 anti-war movie staring Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner. Despite it's heavy subject of a nuclear holocaust wiping out all human life, it succeeds because Stanley Kramer is mercifully more restrained and less pretentious than he would later be . . " www.imdb.com...

Nixon, despite his criminal tendencies, served us well. IMO.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 




My post had nothing to do with winning or losing, since I am not convinced one can with clear conscience apply those terms to the wholesale slaughter of people.



I believe it is an oxymoron to use “clear conscience” in the same sentence as “wholesale slaughter.” But America has had WAR fever forever. From our history we read the US declared war on Great Britain in 1812 when we barely had 6 ships in our navy and the Brits had more than 1,000 ships of the line. We had an army of fewer than 5,000 men. The Brits had the huge army that would go on to defeat Napoleon at Waterloo. Talk about hubris! This one takes the prize! What was Pres. James Madison smoking?

The only reason the British let us “off the hook” in 1814 was their firm belief in their own superiority and that the “colonies” would sooner than later come back to the Crown on their own. The fluke battle at New Orleans in 1815 just filled our heads all the more!




And as for winning a military conflict, it appears that no matter what the outcome, you can find a set of criteria that the outcome meet that you can define as "winning." In other words, winning a war is always an attempt to retroactively find some reason that justifies all that suffering and carnage.



Yes! As in the SURGE. Or, how to extract victory out of the jaws of defeat in the press. I note with sorrow the number of American KIA toll in the ill-planned and criminally executed Bush43 experiment in spreading democracy has reached 4,207 KIA. icasualties.org...

Based on current death rates, the Bush43 L E G A C Y should leave behind about 4,212- 4220 KIA by Jan. 20, 2009. The Iraqi will soon vote to expel the US from Iraq by 2011. They are doing for us what our politicians cannot do. Fix a date. Then our Iraqi KIA will join the 59,000 KIA in Vietnam. All are victims of a blunder at the top. There was no domino effect in Vietnam and there were NO WMDs in Iraq after all. Sort of sad, isn't it? All that death and destructin for naught?

And this is not to even mention the 80,000 Iraqi we killed directly and the 120,000 Iraqi thought to have died incidental to the war, or the 314 of the so-called “Coalition Forces.” See Note 1. All of which VP Cheney and Herr Oberfuhrer Rumsfeld called “collateral damage.” Hey, if it ain’t you or me, it’s collateral. Bush43 is no stranger to other people's deaths. He had 154 men executed during his 6 year stint as governor of Texas. One man every 2 weeks, on average. A record! And he shows no sign of REMORSE. "Hey just doin' my job!" Some are born to lead, some are born to die. "It's GOD's way," Bush43 says. "I'm just HIS instrument."

I don’t believe in ‘Good and Evil’ but I sure do believe in competence and incompetence. The Bush43 team must be the least competent or most incompetent to sit in the White House since Warren G. Harding was succeeded by Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.

OTOH one could argue that without this Bible thumping, bumbling fraud of a DESIGNATED president, Bush43 - who looked Putin in the eye and saw a man he could trust - we would never have elected Barack Hussein Obama to be our next president. If true does that prove every dark cloud has a silver lining? Or the astro-physicist’s claims that out of chaos can come order? And thereby the application of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are limited, at least in the socio-anthropological realm?

Note 1.
Prime Minister Tony Blair who succeeded Margaret Thatcher, lost his leadership post to Gordon Brown on June 27, 2007, largely attributed to his lap-dog like adherence to the war making of Bush43. New PM Gordon Brown immediately ordered the British armed forces out of Basra (and out of harms way) and into a nearby secure air base. The Brits quit the war lest their Labour government should fall. The Brits agreed to stay on in Iraq as a symbol useful only to Bush43 and his mad-dog team of war planners. AND I’m sure without knowing at the SOLE expense of the American taxpayers! Hey, a largely unaudited $10 b. a month is now being spent to CYA for Bush43!

[edit on 11/29/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
after reading this thread i came to one conclution ,
we have no clue what so every about the REAL numbers.

one thing that is true,
is that the worlds security is held in the hands of kids and old fools.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
DonWhite:


1. $ AMOUNT DOEN'T MEAN A THING, it's realy about who has and even amount or more weapons than each other, not the amount of $ spent

2.You can read it in books or online, thats where the figure's I got, before posting.

3.My freind the U.S. left the AMB in 75 thats why in 02 Bush scrapped the ABM treaty, if the U.S. had enough ABM missile like Russia (8500-12000) THIER WOULD HAVE BEEN no need to "build more"




[edit on 29-11-2008 by 121200]



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 




They also were also able to deploy 100,000 men in 24 hours in the slightly remote region. Portable SAMs and ATMs are readily available to them to deter, harass or slows the enemie's air raids and armour movement. Even further, the more the enemies enter the interior, their supplies and reinforcements will be harassed, which is part of China's tactics for centuries.




I like the Chinese. One of the oldest cultures in the world. I like Confucius-living. If I was going to follow someone besides myself, I’d pick him. Fortunately I have a brain of my own. The Chinese peasant has endured for millennia and will witness the passing into history of Mao Zedong and his followers. The problem now facing China is this: 300 million living in the newly developing mostly coastal region and 1 billion living in the hinterland. The coastal people are making 10 X to more than those stuck inland.

China is putting ONE new coal fired electric generating plant on line per WEEK this year and will for all of next year. About 100 in all. The extra carbon dioxide will surely HEAT this plant beyond the point where we can inhabit it. But what the hey, that’s life!

[edit on 11/29/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 
reply to post by donwhite
 

Waaay to digress... but I'll bite a little.


I thought China was first in eating dogs. I read the CP ordered dogs taken off the Beijing restaurant menus during the Olympics.
It's the Western propaganda media that's harping as part of the "China Threat" programme. I bet most of western readers don't even know that South Korea, Vietnam and Thailand have common dog eating habits, it's just that you don't find it in street menus, especially in tourist belts. Admittedly, I've taste dog stew in Bangkok outskirt and vietnam.


China is putting ONE new coal fired electric generating plant on line per WEEK this year and will for all of next year. About 100 in all. The extra carbon dioxide will surely HEAT this plant beyond the point where we can inhabit it. But what the hey, that’s life!
That's what happens when Hypocritic developed do-gooders nations export that polluting industries to developing nations. This countries themselves were at this stage and polluting the atmoshere far longer than China has. In fact, those new coal fired plants is less polluting than those operating in England and US. Did you know that US electricity are mostly powered by Coal ? That reason why pollution isn't that visual is because US's population are widely spread , and is an Island continent. Whereas, China have only one coast and majority of the urban population (which bigger than is the size of USA) are concentrated at the coastal. Further, US is the biggest consumer of Oil, add that of it's global military (which is the forth biggest consumer). And add the coal consumption. The USA could well still be the biggest polluter. It's all about creative and selective statistic thrown about.

I like also to add that the extra carbon dioxide will surely HEAT this plant beyond the point where we can inhabit it. But you can't deny the Chinese the same modern life style the Western Developed countries are enjoying, while harping how poor other countries are. Every body has a part to play, part blaming a developing country for pollution is hypocratical, since if china don't produce the everyday products that the world consumes, the manufacturing would go to the nearest third world countries - the pollution would still be there.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join