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: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArcPeter
Hi there.
I have read an article from very popular russian newspaper recently.
About 5 strongest armies in the world. Take a look at the stats.


5 STRONGEST ARMIES IN WORLD




WHO HAVE MORE WEAPONS?

COUNTRY _____TANK/APC(thousands)_________ PLANES/HELOS________SHIPS/SUBMARINES

USA ________________26/44_________________2800/3500______________92/281
RUSSIA______________22/36_________________2500/3000______________42/310
CHINA_______________19/30_________________1750/1250______________85/315
INDIA________________13/21_________________1080/1115______________27/200
N.KOREA______________9/16___________________553/410_______________19/93

In addition America have 12 carriers, Russia have one and India have one in construction.


AMOUNT OF NUKES

USA ----------6600
RUSSIA ----- 6300
FRANCE -----500
CHINA -------450
ENGLAND ---380
INDIA --------70
PAKISTAN -- 30

BELEIVED AMOUNT OF NUKES

Israel --------80-100
Iran ----------25-30
N.Korea -----15-20






BIGGEST ARMIES

MANPOWER__TOTAL(mln)_____LAND(mln)______NAVY(thou)_____AIRFORCE(thou)

CHINA___________2.30_________1.60_____________400_____________255
USA____________1.45__________0.51_____________379_____________376
INDIA___________1.33__________1.10_____________170_____________61
RUSSIA_________1.20__________0.26_____________190_____________188
N.KOREA________1.11__________0.95______________110_____________47


Bahamas have 860 man strong army.
Costa Rica do not have army at all....

How correct do you gyes think this information is?

Imagine if Russia, China, India and North Korea will ally against US.



They say Russian Army have many problems such as bullying between young and old soldiers, low temp of weapons renewing and moving on contract basis, not enough equipment, money and accommodations. Another army which had to deal with that much problems would probably fall apart, but RA not only survived but is begining to pump it muscles now.

Also article claims that Russia posses "exclusive" weapon system 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".

Thanks

Here is article in russian
www.kp.ru...



[edit on 1-3-2006 by ArcPeter]

[edit on 1-3-2006 by ArcPeter]

[edit on 1-3-2006 by ArcPeter]
*edited caps lock title*

[edit on 1-3-2006 by dbates]


Your are way light on US capital ships and overestimating the PLAN which half of is a coast guard. Next time use a good source like Janes or Global Security!




posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by arcpeter
 


The Chinese Peoples Liberation Army is the largest, number-wise. But that makes sense when you consider that China’s population is also the largest. India’s army OTOH is about half that of China’s although its population will overtake China’s by 2030 or 2040. (But I’ve been hearing that the PRC is deliberately understating its population by as much as 200 million. The lower pop number makes GDP per person look better?)

Neither China nor India are HIGH tech militaries. I regard both as primarily an INTERNAL police force to keep internal order and to keep the current leadership in power, especially in Beijing’s case. Unlike Euro-types neither China nor India have historically waged war outside their own borders. Tibet and Kashmir aside. North Korea is the wild card in army size. Out of 24.5 million people about 4.5% of their whole population is in the Army. China is at 1.8% and India at 1.2%. The US is by the way at 4.8%. The Russian Federation is lowest at 0.8%! So who's best prepared for WAR? Based on relative size, the US or NK?

OTOH if you look at the GDP per person per soldier, you get these numbers: China $2,898 per soldier. India $2,230 per soldier. Russia $1,750 per soldier. North Korea $36.00 per soldier and the US $8,965 for each man (or woman) in uniform. This is what it takes to be HIGH tech. Money numbers from CIA World Factbook.

Yesterday, Sunday, History Channel ran a 5 hours long story on the German Wehrmacht of World War 2. See Foot Note. One point that was made is that any army needs a strong infrastructure behind it if it is to be successful. Between 1935 and 1945, 18.2 million men served in the combined German Armed Forces. Properly called the Wehrmacht but today, Wehrmacht usually refers only to the Army.

The US had 13 million men under arms in September, 1945, but had already discharged 3 million men, making a total in service during the war of 16 million men and women.

By all rights, the Germans had defeated the USSR by November, 1941. But the Soviets would not give up. Note: In 1917, the new Bolshevik government of Russia had sued for peace with the Central Powers led by Germany. Barely 24 years earlier. “Sued” means “I quit, take what you want.”

The Nazi rallying cry from Hitler to the Germans was “Lebensraum” or Land for Expansion. Breathing room. Hitler meant to depopulate the Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus by murdering the inhabitants. Then he would fill the land with the Aryan Race he so much admired. But paranoid Hitler met his match in brutality, cruelty and the willingness to murder in paranoid Joseph Stalin! The two tyrants slaughtered each other’s people on an industrial scale until the more populous Soviets prevailed. 180 million (USSR) versus 60 million (3rd Reich). But don’t forget the Axis Powers included Vichy France, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria as well as the unenthusiastic Italy. Japan played no role in the European theater.


Foot Note.

Wehrmacht (translated "German Armed Forces”), was the name of the unified armed forces of Germany from 1935 to 1945. It consisted of the Heer (army), the Kriegsmarine (navy) and the Luftwaffe (air force).

The Waffen-SS, was initially a small paramilitary section of Heinrich Himmler's Allgemeine SS that grew to nearly a million strong during World War II, was not officially part of the Wehrmacht, but subject to OKW, OKH, as well as Field Command. Thus, the Waffen-SS was, de facto, a fourth branch of the Wehrmacht.

Although it is technically incorrect, the word Wehrmacht is often used to refer specifically to the German Army of the Second World War, as opposed to the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe. en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 12/8/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by arcpeter
 



China’s Peoples Liberation Army is the largest, number-wise. But that makes sense when you consider that China’s population is also the largest. India’s army OTOH is about half that of China’s although its population will overtake China’s by 2030 or 2040. (But I’ve been hearing that the PRC is deliberately understating its population by as much as 200 million. The lower pop number makes GDP per person look better?)

Neither China nor India are HIGH tech militaries. I regard both as primarily an INTERNAL police force to keep internal order and to keep the current leadership in power, especially in Beijing’s case. Unlike Euro-types neither China nor India have historically waged war outside their own borders. Tibet and Kashmir aside. North Korea is the wild card in army size. Out of 24.5 million about 4.5% of their whole population. China is at 1.8% and India at 1.2%. The US is by the way at 4.8%. The Russian Federation is lowest at 0.8%! So who's best prepared for WAR? Based on relative size, the US or NK?

Based on paper it would look like U.S.A., but based on facts Russia is just as ready as U.S.

OTOH if you look at the GDP per person per soldier, you get these numbers: China $2,898 per soldier. India $2,230 per soldier. Russia $1,750 per soldier. North Korea $36.00 per soldier and the US $8,965 for each man (or woman) in uniform. This is what it takes to be HIGH tech. Money numbers from CIA World Factbook.
Just necause you speand more $ doesn't mean your more ready for war, for example Russia speands less 4 than U.S.A. on defeance but Rus has more dual-pupose SAM/ABM missiles, and more Su-27's than F-15's that are operational with the Airforce.



[edit on 8-12-2008 by 121200]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
You're referencing the exact type of situation that person is referring to:

Quantity vs. Quality.

Does it matter if the opponent has more Su-27?

Our pilots are better trained, better motivated, and fly arguably better gear -- in particular the F-15E.

And what do missiles matter when the U.S. has more proven tests, higher budgeting, a more competent work-force to man those missiles..

I do not mean to make it look as though Russia is not a threat, but if you say 'they have more so they win', not only is that a very poor argument, but it also raises the Nationalist hackles on this forum! And as much as we all want to see another Quantity/USSR vs. Quality/U.S. debate..



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 121200
 





Based on paper it would look like U.S.A., but based on facts Russia is just as ready as U.S. Just because you spend more $ doesn't mean your more ready for war, for example Russia spends less 4 than U.S.A. on defense but Rus has more dual-purpose SAM/ABM missiles, and more Su-27's than F-15's that are operational with the Air Force.



“Just as ready?” No. First off, the US has engaged in firefights in old Yugoslavia, in Iraq 1 and again in Iraq 2. In the meantime we have been in and out of Afghanistan. Aside from a few insurrectionists in Chetznia and Georgia the RF has not withstood live fire since 1989. That’s 20 years ago. All those guys have retired by now. Ready? Unlikely.

Napoleon is reputed to have said “I’d rather have a battalion (500) of combat tested and proved soldiers than a division (7,500) of new recruits.” Or words to that effect. Point? The US Air Force spends more on training then the RF spends on its entire AF. As for the missiles on either side, I say “Baloney!” I would not be surprised to learn most of the missiles in their possession were built when Kruschev was chairman. Over here it is known the whole ABM thing is a boondoggle and a hoax on the taxpayers.

F-15s? 40 years old. I hate to waste the money on F22s but by the end of this decade, we’ll far more F22s than we will ever need. Yes, SU27s go fast in a straight line but can they do dog-fights? Aren’t SU27s also about 40 years old?

[edit on 12/8/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
You're referencing the exact type of situation that person is referring to:

Quantity vs. Quality.

Does it matter if the opponent has more Su-27?

Our pilots are better trained, better motivated, and fly arguably better gear -- in particular the F-15E.

Who to you that lie?: "The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range. Although the F-15C and Su-27P series are similar in many categories, the Su-27 can outperform the F-15C at both long and short ranges."
www.fas.org...




And what do missiles matter when the U.S. has more proven tests, higher budgeting, a more competent work-force to man those missiles..

Care to proove that buddy, because I could debate that WITH facts.




I do not mean to make it look as though Russia is not a threat, but if you say 'they have more so they win', not only is that a very poor argument, but it also raises the Nationalist hackles on this forum! And as much as we all want to see another Quantity/USSR vs. Quality/U.S. debate..

And this is the problem with all westerners, they have been manipulated into believing this myth that Russia is "Quantity vs. Quality."
while in reality Russia is "Quality in Quantity"



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
its not how big it is , its what you do with it, who do nearly all countries call on when they need the best, it aint the navy seals or delta force, it will always be the SAS or the real pros SBS



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by 121200
 





Based on paper it would look like U.S.A., but based on facts Russia is just as ready as U.S. Just because you spend more $ doesn't mean your more ready for war, for example Russia spends less 4 than U.S.A. on defense but Rus has more dual-purpose SAM/ABM missiles, and more Su-27's than F-15's that are operational with the Air Force.



“Just as ready?” No. First off, the US has engaged in firefights in old Yugoslavia, in Iraq 1 and again in Iraq 2. In the meantime we have been in and out of Afghanistan. Aside from a few insurrectionists in Chetznia and Georgia the RF has not withstood live fire since 1989. That’s 20 years ago. All those guys have retired by now. Ready? Unlikely.

With whom, those nations military are nxt to 3 world status, of-course U.S./NATO was going to eventually win, but lets take a closer look shal we, Iraq in "DesertStorm had a much weaker military that the U.S. but still maintained to shoot down 40 Crafts of all types and damaged 43 other crafts" www.rjlee.org...
Yougoslavia also had a weaker military but still caused NATO to go no less than 15k feet from the ground on bombing missions, and NATO lost countless UAV's and Cruise missiles, now just imagine if 90% thier militaries had upgraded Russian Weapons huh, Nato/U.S. would have lost so horribly it would even be funny.




Napoleon is reputed to have said “I’d rather have a battalion (500) of combat tested and proved soldiers than a division (7,500) of new recruits.” Or words to that effect. Point? The US Air Force spends more on training then the RF spends on its entire AF. As for the missiles on either side, I say “Baloney!” I would not be surprised to learn most of the missiles in their possession were built when Kruschev was chairman. Over here it is known the whole ABM thing is a boondoggle and a hoax on the taxpayers.

The U.S. Gov doesn't think the same:
1. "B.V. Bunkin, the designer of the follow-on SA-10 and SA-12 (S-300 PMU and S-300V in Russian nomenclature) missile systems, and several other Russian sources, confirmed that these also were dual-purpose SAM/ABMs. SA-10s largely have replaced the thousands of SA-5 interceptors deployed across the Soviet empire during the Cold War. Bunkin's latest SAM/ABM design, the SA-20, is scheduled to begin deployment this year."
findarticles.com...

2. "Critics of the ABM treaty argue that the
treaty is no longer binding because the Soviet
Union no longer exists and because the
Soviets were, and the Russians continue to be,
in violation of the treaty. They contend that
the Russians have more than the one ABM
system permitted by the treaty.
The “10,000 to 12,000 interceptors” to which
Arminio refers are SA-5, SA-10, and SA-12
anti-aircraft missiles that some ABM treaty
opponents argue have an anti-ballistic missile
capability.1"
www.cato.org...
3. www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...





Thanks for proving your a joke 40 year old Su-27's
wow If I had read your last post I would have know your a joke and NEVER even botherd reasonding to your un-informed posts.




posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 121200
 




Thanks for proving you’re a joke 40 year old SU-27's wow If I had read your last post I would have know you’re a joke and NEVER even bothered reasoning to your un-informed posts.



In 1969 the Soviet Union
learned of the United States Air Force’s selection of McDonnell to produce the Fighter Experimental design (which was to become the F-15 Eagle). In response to that upcoming threat the Soviets instituted the PFI (Advanced Frontline Fighter) program for an aircraft that could match the new American fighter on its own terms.

THE LPFI program resulted in the MiG-29, a relatively short-range tactical fighter, while the TPFI program was assigned to Sukhoi OKB, which eventually produced the Su-27 and its various derivatives.

The Sukhoi design, which was altered progressively to reflect Soviet awareness of the F-15's specifications, emerged as the T-10 (Sukhoi's 10th design), which first flew on 20 May 1977.

The SU-27 has seen limited action since it first entered service. Ethiopian SU-27s reportedly shot down five Eritrean MiG-29s. Recently, in the 2008 South Ossetia War, Russia was using SU-27s to gain airspace control over Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia

Russia. 449 SU27s are in service with the Russian Air Force. Russia plans to upgrade their aircraft to the SU-27SM standard, which will include a glass cockpit and digital fly-by-wire. The radar is to be upgraded with a phased array allowing increased range. The self defense and navigation suites will also be upgraded, as well as an attack suite. They hope this will be completed by 2008. Besides the SU-27s, Russia also has 19 SU-30, 28 SU-33, 30 SU-34 and 11 SU-35. en.wikipedia.org...

America. F-15 Eagle is an all-weather tactical fighter designed to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat. It was developed for the US Air Force and first flew in July 1972. It is one of the best recognized fighters of the modern day. The F-15E Strike Eagle derivative is an all-weather strike fighter that entered service in 1989. The F-15 has not been shot down in air-air combat as of 2008.

The US Air Force operated 660 F-15 aircraft (515 in active duty and 145 in ANG, active inventory, all variants) as of September 2007. en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 12/8/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by 121200
 




Thanks for proving you’re a joke 40 year old SU-27's wow If I had read your last post I would have know you’re a joke and NEVER even bothered reasoning to your un-informed posts.



In 1969 the Soviet Union
learned of the United States Air Force’s selection of McDonnell to produce the Fighter Experimental design (which was to become the F-15 Eagle). In response to that upcoming threat the Soviets instituted the PFI (Advanced Frontline Fighter) program for an aircraft that could match the new American fighter on its own terms.

THE LPFI program resulted in the MiG-29, a relatively short-range tactical fighter, while the TPFI program was assigned to Sukhoi OKB, which eventually produced the Su-27 and its various derivatives.

The Sukhoi design, which was altered progressively to reflect Soviet awareness of the F-15's specifications, emerged as the T-10 (Sukhoi's 10th design), which first flew on 20 May 1977.

The SU-27 has seen limited action since it first entered service. Ethiopian SU-27s reportedly shot down five Eritrean MiG-29s. Recently, in the 2008 South Ossetia War, Russia was using SU-27s to gain airspace control over Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia

Russia. 449 SU27s are in service with the Russian Air Force. Russia plans to upgrade their aircraft to the SU-27SM standard, which will include a glass cockpit and digital fly-by-wire. The radar is to be upgraded with a phased array allowing increased range. The self defense and navigation suites will also be upgraded, as well as an attack suite. They hope this will be completed by 2008. Besides the SU-27s, Russia also has 19 SU-30, 28 SU-33, 30 SU-34 and 11 SU-35. en.wikipedia.org...

America. F-15 Eagle is an all-weather tactical fighter designed to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat. It was developed for the US Air Force and first flew in July 1972. It is one of the best recognized fighters of the modern day. The F-15E Strike Eagle derivative is an all-weather strike fighter that entered service in 1989. The F-15 has not been shot down in air-air combat as of 2008.

The US Air Force operated 660 F-15 aircraft (515 in active duty and 145 in ANG, active inventory, all variants) as of September 2007. en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 12/8/2008 by donwhite]
I what I ment by the Su-27 NOT being 40 years old is all of RUAF's 27's NON of them were actually built in 1968 they were all built between 77-92, and you do know that USAF's F-15 are only 230/250 F-15C/E while the other 500 are A-B-D around 2/3 are in storage while around (not exact figure) are flying with the "Air-National Guard.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 121200
 




What I meant by the Su-27 NOT being 40 years old is all of RUAF's 27's NONE of them were actually built in 1968 they were all built between 77-92, and you do know that USAF's F-15 are only 230/250 F-15C/E while the other 500 are A-B-D around 2/3 are in storage while around (not exact figure) are flying with the Air-National Guard.



I hope all the SU27s and F15s get so old they will not fly. I do not believe the Russian people want a war with anyone, nor the Chinese people. But in America there are the Red State types who LOVE war. 57 million of them voted last month.

It takes a very long time from concept to mass production. That was my main point. Shucks, the F22 was authorized in sometime in the early 1980s. The first test plane flew on September 29, 1990. The F22 went into service in December, 2005. There have been 122 built so far. They cost $137.5 million each. I don’t know how many we will buy but IMO we have enough already.



The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor
is a fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. It is primarily an air superiority fighter, but has multiple capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles. The F-22 is a fifth generation fighter that is considered a fourth-generation stealth aircraft by the USAF.

Its dual afterburning Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans incorporate pitch axis thrust vectoring, with a range of ±20 degrees. The maximum thrust is classified, though most sources place it at about 35,000 lbf per engine. Maximum speed, without external weapons, is estimated to be Mach 1.82 in supercruise mode; as demonstrated by General John P. Jumper, former US Air Force Chief of Staff, when his Raptor exceeded Mach 1.7 without afterburners on 13 January 2005. With afterburners, it is "greater than Mach 2.0" (1,317 mph), according to Lockheed Martin; en.wikipedia.org...




The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
is a fifth-generation, single-seat, single-engine, stealth-capable military strike fighter, a multi role aircraft that can perform close air support, tactical bombing, and air superiority fighter missions.

The F-35 has three different models; one is the conventional takeoff and landing variant, the second is short takeoff and vertical-landing variant, and the third is a carrier-based variant.

The F-35 is descended from the X-35, the product of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Its development is being principally funded by the United States, with the United Kingdom, and other partner governments providing additional funding. It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems as major partners.

Demonstrator aircraft flew in 2000, with the first flight on 15 December 2006. The F-35 appears to be a smaller, slightly more conventional, one-engine sibling of the sleeker, two-engine F-22 Raptor, and indeed drew elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, a 1972 VTOL aircraft designed for the Sea Control Ship.

Lockheed teamed with the Yakovlev Design Bureau, developer of the Yakovlev Yak-141 "Freestyle" in the 1990s.
Stealth technology makes the aircraft difficult to detect as it approaches short-range tracking radar.

Two different jet engines are being developed for the F-35; the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136. The STOVL versions of both powerplants use the innovative Rolls-Royce LiftSystem, patented by Lockheed Martin and built by Rolls-Royce. This system is more like the Russian Yak-141 and German VJ 101D/E than the preceding generation of STOVL designs, such as the Harrier Jump Jet. en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 12/8/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I say scrap all F-15/16/18's and buy 2000 F-22's and 500 F-35's

[edit on 8-12-2008 by 121200]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
remove N.Korea and replace it with Israel.

north korea may have a large military but it is not armed to do much more then take over south korea at best. and at worst they would lose control in the north if there troops went south.
and then it would be at the loss of a large number of there military.

the US would not fight north korea like in the 1950s.
we would stand off and bomb them till they could no longer fight.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


First of all I am an INDIAN..... But a realistic INDIAN so i will not be biased.

The question 5 strongest army is a little confusing....

The armies must be categorized as Strongest, stronger and strong

Under Strongest:

1]UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, undoubtedly because,
Its the only country that can attack and still win ( if it continues without political interference).
The big army like China and my country India can only defend.... and for how long?
Military strength must be calculated by keeping all four dimensions like land, navy, airforce, and space communication. Only US and Russia( almost) will qualify to be the strongest.
Russia and US were the only country that came out of WW2 with huge Profits, and UK a little if not too much.
USA stands for Freedom and peace. The best in the world serve
USA and rightly because they get the best returns.

2]RUSSIA: Prime reason is that it has the balls to develop everything on its own.. and sometimes better than USA.

These two are the only countries with resources and the muscle to put anything they want into action..
Between these two, if one has to choose.... it is USA because of funding on HAARP , Russia due to lack of funds cannot fund its Ionosphere heating technology SURA nowadays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under STRONGER:

UK, France, Italy, Germany for experience and history(WW2) of warfare along with resources and superior technology.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under STRONG( By no means weaker than others, the distinction is based on experience and indigenous technology hence these countries fall a little short):

China, India, Japan , Turkey , Brazil, Iran.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The others are capable of buying technology , some nuclear weapons... but research facilities and resources does not allow them to continue a war to its successful completion.
The big armies with no money:
CHINA has the highest SAM installation... just like the great wall of china... they are defenders and peace loving....
INDIA.. by the time the govt makes up its mind the War will be over... Dragons on the paper( We want peace always... yes).

As far as nuclear weapons go:

Anti ballistic missiles are out of fashion... because they will be fried in the ionosphere. Hence only cruise missiles can carry nuclear load. Here the speed and accuracy counts.. Russia has speed and US has both speed and accuracy. Hence the BRAHMOS project of INDO- RUSSIA started , and now has both speed and accuracy... so if nuclear weapons are actually launched lets say, How many will reach the target?

China has huge sam installation . US and Russia almost impenetrable air space ( HAARP and SURA and ABM's)

the stronger countries are quite capable of developing their own but the idea is to support UN forces.

India has no plans of developing ballistic missiles cause the ABM technology has been borrowed from Russia and developing technology on those lines. Russia's interest in India's supersonic missiles is more because The IMDP of India has produced results that are evident. But INDIA must be careful of a nuclear war because INDIAN air space is not completely sealed and also the high population density will cause more casualty. India is still developing and will continue to do so....

China is just like india... its better than india in technology and has almost developed everything on its own... even the program on the nuke is written in chinese... so KUDOS u chinese!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the major forces.. the rest of them are the lucky countries cause they can live in peace



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by denythestatusquo
 
man get the right information..india would never purchase from china ...neither would china sell anything to india..and do not doubt india..it is perhaps the busiest army of the world



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I think it's all dependant on what conflict the armies are involved in. If you think that the war in Iraq is a full utilization of America's military, you are sorely mistaken. That is a police action, and police have to follow rules of engagement. If another world war were to happen, the gloves come off. There will be none of the "look in each house and find the enemy", it will just be destroy the village.

Look at WWII. Nation's changed their entire economy to become huge war machines. Normal citizens gave up luxuries and some necessities to fund the war. We have not had a world wide conflict like that since then, so it's hard to say who has the biggest. Very few weapons lasted until the end of the war, by the end it was all new equipment and a lot of new technology. The only way to find out who has the biggest and best is to fight, and see who is the last one standing. So who goes first?



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


If you look at history, India has been invaded many times. Pakistan is seven times smaller and has a deterrent capability - conventional or nuke. india just has the numbers and is not a sigificant force. outside of its rivalry with pakistan i dont think it can to do much.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
replytopost by Anonymous ATS
 




I think it's all dependant on what conflict the armies are involved in. If you think that the war in Iraq is a full utilization of America's military, you are sorely mistaken. That is a police action, and police have to follow rules of engagement. If another world war were to happen, the gloves come off. There will be none of the "look in each house and find the enemy", it will just be destroy the village.



What you say sounds good Mr A/N, but it just does not ring true to what has happened. When the May 1 “Mission Accomplished” announcement was made, that was believed to be true and ended the WAR component of the Iraq equation. Because of an almost (criminal) wilful failure of intelligence - contradictory info was not welcomed - we were completely unprepared for the occupation that has followed.

From May 1, 2003, until the present was the occupation phase. We have gradually done better but I believe the primary reasons for the post SURGE success is our paying the Sunni NOT TO KILL Americans. We don’t now what we are paying but when we stop, we better be on our way out! See Note 1.




Look at WWII. Nation's changed their entire economy to become huge war machines. Normal citizens gave up luxuries and some necessities to fund the war. We have not had a world wide conflict like that since then, so it's hard to say who has the biggest.



Again you are right on, though you personally remain unknown. I am constantly surprised to learn that 16 million men (and a few women) served in the US armed forces between 1941 and 1945. The US population in 1940 was 132 million, up from the 123 million in 1930. The 1940 USSR population was given at 180 million. China was estimated at 400 million, compared to India at 350 million. Japan at 80 million. I have also read that due to lack of manpower US productivity had reached only about 80% of its full capacity.




Very few weapons lasted until the end of the war, by the end it was all new equipment and a lot of new technology. The only way to find out who has the biggest and best is to fight, and see who is the last one standing. So who goes first?



That was absolutely true with the US. Noting was in service in 1945 that was regular issue in 1941. The Japanese ended the war with the Zero still its front line fighter. The Germans ended the war with the 109 and 190 as their primary fighters, more 190s than 109s.

Sure, the Germans had the only jet, the 262 (ignore the Gloster Meteor) in a few squadrons but you must understand the design weaknesses of those early jet engines. The first jet engines suffered from slow throttle response. The engines had the bad habit of compressor stall when you needed power the most. Restarting the jet engine in the air was problematic at best. The rate of consumption of scarce jet fuel was high for the advantage sought but not always gained. Flying a 262 was almost as hazardous as flying another of Hitler's promised war-wining "Wunderwaffen" (wonder weapons), the Me Komet 163. See Note 2.


Note 1. The much touted ‘07 Bush43 SURGE was in reality a political ploy by Bush43 and a masquerade of numbers. The only true claim of the SURGE was the increase in the number of combat soldiers deployed inside Baghdad. All the rest is balderdash!

The real motivation for the Bush43 surge was to FORESTALL Democratic Congressional investigations into the mismanagement of the Iraq invasion afer May 1, 2003.

The new Democratic congress elected in ‘06 took office January 6, 2007. The end of the fiscal year was September 30, 2007. If Bush43 could somehow avoid Congress and a public discussion of his poor handing of the war out past the end of the ‘07 fiscal year, there was nothing the Congress or the people could do to stop the war on his watch.

This maneuver - the SURGE - was perhaps Bush43's highest moment of political triumph!

Note 2: The Messerschmitt 163 Komet was the deadliest plane ever built. At the heart of the Komet was a rocket motor which mixed oxidizing agent (a hydrogen peroxide mixture known as T-stoff) and a fuel (hydrazine hydrate - methyl alcohol and water - called C-stoff). But it was the sheer variety of ways that it could kill you that made the Komet unique. The controls tended to lock up, leaving the plane going in a straight line. If this happened during the attack dive, the Komet could accelerate to high speed and broke apart. Otherwise, it just plowed into the ground like a thunderbolt.

The exhaust plumbing could crack on take off. A leak into the cockpit would fill the cockpit with steam making vision impossible. T-stoff, concentrated hydrogen peroxide, is a powerful corrosive and the pilot sat between two tanks of it. "One pilot did get dissolved by T stoff flowing into the cockpit after the aircraft crashed on take-off and inverted."

Three hundred and seventy Komets were built; they shot down nine Allied bombers between them. About five per cent of the Komets were lost to Allied fire in the air; fifteen per cent were lost due to problems with the controls and hydraulics. The other eighty per cent were victims of explosions.

No wonder pilot’s nicknamed it “The Devil’s Sled" - a fast ride straight to hell.
www.defensetech.org...

[edit on 1/6/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
to those of you who posted about Japan being one of the strongest, JAPAN DOES NOT HAVE A FORMAL ARMY.

Japan keeps 250K Troops and 50K of them being American Troops, only for the reason that the UN might call for them. They do not have a formal army, navy or airforce.

Also, India and Russia work together on anything, why the hell would they fighter each other?

India and Pakistan are very ready in terms of war, they fight over everything and they are definitely ready to strike at any given time. Pakistan is backed by the US and India backed by Russia.

The UK and France are very well disciplined but are not exactly the strongest, they go in the top 10 but not top 5.

China in no way has an advanced army. It cut its army down to 1.6mill or so personnel but it still uses very outdated equipment, BUT China fights economically so not many people would actually wanna fight this monster..

Isreal is very well equiped and trained so it is definitely a very powerful army.

Accounting all this the ranking should be as follows:

1.USA (duh....)
2.Russia (but US and Russia are pretty tied up...)
3.China
4.India
5.Isreal
6.Pakistan
7.UK
8.France (I really can't believe that these guys suck even with these stats..)

I really can't judge after this..

Those who said India and Pakistan are too poor to have a strong military, India and Pakistan are allied with the 2 strongest armies in the world and they both share technology, weapons, and much more. If they can't do it alone, then the US or Russia will step in.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join