What is the 3rd best military ??

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by devilwasp
hey i come from the country and i have to admit our mod has screwed up YET we still kick ass no matter what

and dont belive what they say about the british army or that being under equiped
i know a marine guy and his squad couldnt get any more equipment given to them litilary for a standard assignment he had 6 smokes about 5 frags and enough ammo to last for 2 days and he coulda asked for more and gotten it
he was only due out for a 4 hour assignment


What do you mean by your "mod"?
I would wager they say that they are under equiped to get more funding. Thats what I would do...


MOD is Ministry of Defence same as US DoD Dept of Defence

Also to the guys talking about nuke, it is one thing to have them it is another thing to deliver them, and you must remember that UK has Trident II nuke subs (4 each carrying 16 missile tubes capable of firing Trident D5 missiles which have 8 or 10 warhead (can't remember if anyone can help here)) For range and accuracy this has to be the best delivery system in existance (made in US fine tuned in UK). So from the point of view of nukes UK must be 3rd because our nuc cannot be targeted easily (unless US has developed sub tracking system) has longer range and greater accuracy than other countries (only France probably coming close as they have SSBN as well - as a general comment this thread has overlooked the French Military was is not to be discounted)

Great thread by the was


[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Popeye]




posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Mmmmmm. No ones mentioned France.


Good well equipped Army.Nukes.Bigger and more modern Carriers than the UK.

I'd say one against one.

3rd China

4th UK/France

6th Israel

7th India

8th Pakistan

9th North Korea.

10th Italy

11th Germany

12th Australia

13th Spain



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   
have u ever seen the french tanks !
they are crap
our tanks are the best in the world
and also i dont really like france dont know y but i dont



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I think that this questions depends on how you look at it. You are either attacking a country, or defending a country.

For attacking, your army only needs to compete against your enemy/enemies. To defend a country, you are on your own.

I think that we (the UK), would have to be the 3rd hardest country to attack and beat on home turf on earth. We have excellent weapon systems, the most highly trained fighting force in the world (including the US, Russia, China et al), and heavily guarded air, land & sea borders. That said, there are probably larger foreign armies, though not as well equiped, who would be able to attack and beat a country on their home turf a little easier.

Like the US, Russia & China, nobody would be able to successfully attack and conquer the UK without raining nukes down on it.



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
hoah benji u speak the truth

but any country would be hard to beat on home turf u have to admit
i wouldnt like to go up against any1 whos gaurding thier home land litilary
a coward can turn into a dangerous soldier



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 06:00 PM
link   
JB: 3rd China

4th UK/France

6th Israel

7th India

8th Pakistan

9th North Korea.

10th Italy

11th Germany

12th Australia

13th Spain

Damn, Canada didn't make the top 13. Could it have something to do with our aircraft fallin out of the sky?



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
i would think that ausiie land would be higher up in the list thier guys are good
i can understand german army

poor guys have had the military beat out thier culture



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
i would think that ausiie land would be higher up in the list thier guys are good
i can understand german army

poor guys have had the military beat out thier culture


Aussie land being hard to invade? No doubt - it just isn't in the same realm as US/Russia/China (or even England) cause of the small population. Plus, aren't guns illegal in australia? I could be wrong - but I know that is the case in England and I guess I unfairly relate the 2.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Best in terms of pure numbers: China
Best trained soldiers: UK
Most funding/Technology: USA (Russia or UK in far second)



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   
ok - again:

LEAVE USA AND RUSSIA OUT OF THE THREAD UNLESS IT IS IN RELATION TO WEAPONS USED BY OTHER COUNTRIES.

THIS THREAD IS FOR DISCUSSION OF NON US/RUSSIAN MILITARY BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THEY ARE 1 AND 1a.

You are right about China having the most people to throw at another country - but could they handle the air power of a European power. Their navy is also sub par to say the least.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a short assesment of China's armed forces... It's a little dated, but I think the basic point that China could not launch an effective offensive war still holds true.

Exerpt:



China may still have the world's largest armed forces, but experts doubt whether much of the military, hampered by poor training, a lack of equipment and years of civil duties, would actually prove effective in an offensive role.

While Beijing maintains the option of force to reunite Taiwan with the mainland, Military Balance, the yearbook of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, suggests this is far from likely.

"China does not have the resources to carry out an opposed landing on Taiwan or anywhere else," writes the yearbook's authors.

"But it could cause serious disruption to shipping and economic activity and possibly capture one or more of the smaller islands near the mainland."


news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Australia is nowhere up there....

i think we have a total of something like 69k troops...



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I am saying Russia for #3. It may be more advanced than China, but Russia has no organization. In fact, the "Russian Air Force" is a very unofficial name. There is actually no leadership whatsoever, so each branch is like a private security force rather than an actual military.

Disarray is a BAD thing.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Russia is #2 - no contest.

They have experience, size, tech, and nukes. The org they have is better or equal to that of China. The Experience is maybe the biggest factor - you know the saying - practice makes perfect. Well, Russian generals have a lot of practice from their USSR days. Can you think of the last time China was in a war?



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Why don't you guys look up some info. You talk about military expenditure and funding but then don't back it up.

There are lots of sites that list military expenditures for the world's countries.

www.cia.gov...

www.geographyiq.com...

projects.sipri.org...

www.aneki.com...

www.cia.gov...

Take a look at these lists if you want to talk about what armies are well funded.


As for saying that China has an army of 200,000,000; that is pure nonsense. They have 207,000,000 males between the ages of 15-49 that are fit for military service, their is a huge difference.

www.geographyiq.com...


Having said all that, I would vote for China as the answer to your question. They have a large military expenditure right now but it is still only a small part of their GDP so they could spend a lot more in a time of war. They also have the population to wage war for a long time.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   
oh for a point this country is NOT just engalnd get it through ur heads there are more than 4 countries here not just england
i mean come on 60% of britains specail forces are scotish
also why do u think that england is the only country in the uk i mean it is our forces fighting in iraq



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   


to think of and an outdated airforce.


nope china has the largest airforce in the world.........a direct contender (because of its size) to the usaf



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   
no one mentions poland.......

not surprising b/c not much is known..... but as of right now.....there overall strength of military is stronger then that of germany.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
good info greenkoolaid

nice to see someone putting a little work into the thread.

However, I do not believe pure expenditure or population can by themselves validate the power of a military. China for instance, may be spending a lot on the military, but that money goes to upgrade their outdated systems on top of feeding that 2 million man army. They have little force projection as well, though obviously they would be all but impossable to invade. I just don't see how they would be able aply those 2 million men to a conflict thousands of miles away the way the US, UK, or Russia could.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega1



to think of and an outdated airforce.


nope china has the largest airforce in the world.........a direct contender (because of its size) to the usaf


China does have a large airforce, but it is not anywhere near that of the US in terms of might. They are all older planes - and the ones they build themselves are having serious problems.

As for Poland, they have a great military tradition, but like you have pointed out, I nor anyone else either knows or has posted anything about them. Help us out






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join