Top Ten Armies of the World

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NEXT

PuckaMan RE:Canadian Newbie - North Korea 4/5/2004 6:33:26 PM

North Korea's days are numbered, which is good for all. China's fed up with them, NK's a hinderance to economic development to the region, and the flood of refugees into PRC is getting to be a real problem. NK is only threatening Nuclear armament because Kim Il Sung's regieme it teetering ad near collapse - it's caught in a catch 22 situation - it cannot afford to continually support its army, yet without the army, the regime would collapse. You can tell something is seriously wrong when the lower the height requirements of the army because of generational malnutrition. The world was doing the right thing NOT talking to them. The regime is near collapse, and for that reason. they are dangerous - use it or lose it so to speak. As mike said, if they try anything, the region and the world's most powerful nation will crush them like a paper cup - and they know this. As previously stated, China wouldn't help them at all, although they would be keen to prevent any conflict that would shut down the busiest ports in the north. I doubt they could get a nuke to LA. The Taepodong missles are for essentially show anyway. The real question is: ho much longer will they last? Pucka

Quote Reply

fall out RE:Canadian Newbie - North Korea 4/5/2004 9:35:41 PM

"Yet I am convinced they would hit LA somehow" - they cant conventionally, ie thru bombers/land based missiles (although the latter is questionable), but they know full well that if they did, they would lose everything, their lives, their country, everything. so, why would they want to nuc LA?

Quote Reply

Ehran RE:Canadian Newbie - North Korea 4/5/2004 10:53:20 PM

the only problem with this MAD approach to nukes is it assumes both sides are rational creatures. all evidence we have in the case of NK screams that this isn't so in this case.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Price of War 4/6/2004 5:01:44 AM

Yodah writes ?i think the british without their nukes are not an army to be in top ten because th USA is already listed and as of now the British army is just a secondary force to the US forces as for france i think their Mil tradition of not being repeatedly able to defend homeland makes them rather a poor choic? Have you not read/learnt anything from the knowledgeable people who have written posts on here previously? Firstly when we talk about power, what we mean is ?Power Projection?, Nuclear weapons are only a small part of this. One of the most important elements of military might is the Navy. This allows power projection. The USN is the largest navy in the world and the Royal Navy is the second largest (in terms of size, its larger than the French and German fleet combined). This allows Britain to carry out expeditionary warfare, on a scale only bettered by the US. While France is the only other nation who can do this on a worth while scale. This concept slips right under Yodha?s radar ?according to u is france or england capable of MILITARILY defeating China OR india i think even statistically it is impossible so wat are they doing above these two countries accept that they are in western europe. compare in any possible way . including nuke? India, China, Russia, may have large standing armies, but look at the quality. They lack adequate training, equipment and finance with which to fight. Coupled with this, they lack projection, which means that they can be nothing more than regional powers, as if for example Britain went to war with China, then other than the war going nuclear, then the Chinese wouldn?t be able to strike against Britain in any way. While on the other hand, although Britain couldn?t invade and conquer China (no nation possibly could or would want to) yet Britain could seriously damage her. If we move to the year 2020 for instance, when all the up-grades and new platforms are in place (CVF, RV Triton, T-45, Astute?s, FOAS, Typhoon) when Britain?s stand off capabilities and fleet defence would be considerably enhanced, then the chances are that Britain could damage China even more. You also have to look at the cost of war. China and Russia lack the finance to maintain a large scale conflict, which is a bad thing on there part, as there defence relies on attrition. Heres a post I placed on the subject of the BRIC economies; ?RE:Price of War 4/1/2004 6:50:26 PM You also need to remember that wars like all things, cost money. Russian GDP lags well over $1.2 Trillion behind that of Britain, which approximately has a 2% growth rate. Although Russian growth is 5.5%, it still has some way to go; especially considering that Britain along with the other G7 nations are developing tertiary and Quaternary industries (See Rule Britannia 3/15/2004 5:28:11 AM) link But the fact remains, that China and Russia are nothing more than poverty stricken military backwaters who can?t force the issue by sending an taskforce anywhere, which makes them regional powers While Britain and France can and do project power, which makes these nations ?World Powers?.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Price of War 4/6/2004 5:05:08 AM

The link in that page doesn?t work. Use this one. link

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Canadian Newbie - North Korea 4/6/2004 10:19:25 AM

As I said in an earlier post on this topic, dealing with North Korea is like dealing with aliens from another planet. They are rational within their own system, the problem is that their system is completely disconnected from the world around them. It is likely that Kim would be diagnosed as mentally incompetent were he to be examined by a psychiatrist in Europe or the US. Why? Because he can't tell reality from fantasy, by our standards. He is completely competent by the standards of his system, unfortunately for him, and more importantly the citizens of the DPRK, his system isn't real. This is why they are starving even though he has one of the largest military arsenals on the planet. Power does come from the barrel of a gun, but long lasting power that can influence the world comes from the strength of your culture and economy, as the UK and US have demonstrated repeatedly for over 3 centuries now. So, why is this a problem? Well, being that out of touch with reality, it is quite possible for Kim to convince himself that he could use a crude atomic weapon in a terrorist style strike against the US, Japan or ROK without fear of retaliation. Looking in from the outside world, the reality of global power, diplomacy and economics, we know this is not true. But Kim is not part of that world. It is possible that, if he feels his power slipping, he could try something like that. This was the nightmare scenario as the USSR started to collapse. We know now that it wasn't really a likely scenario with the USSR, they were pretty in touch with reality. But Kim and the DPRK are different.

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:Canadian Newbie - North Korea 4/6/2004 2:26:47 PM

South Korea would beat north korea hands down. The north fire off their artillary barrage. What then? The South Koreans have basicaly terraced much of the 51st paralell. Its like a giant step. Also the worlds largest minefield is there. The US is putting in new mines that can be remotely de-activated to clear a path for the allies. The South Koreans can move into the north but not vice versa. The north koreans are starving. armies can't fight on empty stomachs. However the north isn't tetering on the brink. Kim has built up a Big Brother style personality cult around himself. The North Koreans have been brainwashed into loving the guy! The changes won't come till kim croaks. Ad. Surely the thing that an army should be measured by first and foremost is the ability to defend its country? Also you forget that Russia and China are land based powers. They don't need to move their armies across the sea (cept. the Taiwan straight in China's case). Your measuring Russia and China according to US/UK criteria for what makes a good army. Their goals are different.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Canadian Newbie - North Korea 4/6/2004 3:05:25 PM

Ok then if we look at defence, then Britain is superior there too, as I doubt any nation other than the US would even get near the White Cliffs of Dover, let alone land there. A combination of local naval and air dominance, which could only be bettered by the US, would allow Britain a relatively easy victory. Yet, only the French and the Yanks could attempt this sort of operation. China and Russia could defend its self, but it couldn?t prevent an invasion. So if were looking at the bigger picture, then Britain can be both offensive and defensive and in a superior manner to the Chinese or the Russians.

Quote Reply

Advocate Of REason mobilization 4/6/2004 6:14:19 PM

I think you all need to consider a coutry's ability to mobilize as well as their standing military. For example Israel has amndatory 2 years of service when a male child turns 18, and since then every male citizen above 18 and under 50 goes through a minimum of three weeks training so in time of war Israel's 500,000 strong military can be further enchanced by about 1.5 million troops, whore are not simply emergency conscripts, but men who are already organized into their fighting organizations and have an averege of almost a years worth of military training and familirization with their tasks. So technically Israel's reserves is the entire male population of military age, and this is all not even including the amounts of women who volunteer in massive numbers (there are over 50,000 female volunteer reservists in Israel). I'm not sure but i think that of all the other armies Israel has the best mobilization capacity.

Quote Reply

Advocate Of REason RE:mobilization 4/6/2004 6:16:14 PM

I forgot to include that the three weeks training is every year until they turn 50 and in the same units with the same people, so when called up the reserve units are very well organized, almost as well as the regular army

Quote Reply

Advocate Of REason RE:mobilization 4/6/2004 6:29:50 PM

And in my 1 year estimate of training i forgot to include the mandatory 2 years when the man turns 18, so its actually an averege of 3 years per every one of those 1.5 million reservists. also there are 2 typos in my original post: "troops, whore are " is supposed to be just "troops, who are" and "has amndatory 2 years " is supposed to be just "has a mandatory 2 years" just making sure everything is crystal clear

Quote Reply

ya2 RE:mobilization 4/6/2004 7:06:27 PM

we serve 3 years when we turn 18 and 3 weeks every year untill the age 45, but they usually change this age.. i think its 40 now but not sure ..

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Price of War 4/7/2004 7:27:15 AM

Yodah writes ?tell me friend where has Britain fought in last few years without american backing . and as for trainning of indian forces i think it is as good as any in the world considering that men from US and FRAnce regularly come totrainning schools heer and china CAN hit england so dont kid yourself UK is nothing but a vassal of USA as for spending on troops u forget economies of china and india are bigger then UK and they would go to any lengths to maintain top condition forces which they d? The Falklands, was the last war fought by any Western nation on their own. Britain has fought in 143 years worth of conflicts since 1945. Ask RM-Nod for the total list of nations, where Britain has participated, as a single nation and as an ally to others as part of a broader coalition. All this ?US puppet? nonsense. Tell me, if Britain was such a bit part player to the Second Gulf War, then why did the UK 1st Armoured Division spearhead the attack into Iraq? Secondly, you cannot compare the training of a volunteer solider in Britain, with that of an Inidan or Chinese conscript. There is no comparison on the level of training and money spent to finance it. Also, if US and French troops do go to India, it is only to advise on training level and to improve general command at platoon level for instance. Something vital for a conscript army to get right and improve. Thirdly, please tell me how China could ever dream of attacking Britain, with out using Nuclear weapons? (which would signal the end for China, as it would bring NATO against them, and a few British D5?s as well as some US ICBM?s) China has no projection power? Please come back and give me a detailed account of how the Chinese armed forces could hope of attacking Britain, I?m eagerly awaiting a response on that! Finally, Britain has the fourth largest economy and spends triple on defence of what China does. $20 billion spread over an armed force the size of nearly two million isn?t going to buy a lot of bang for your buck.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Yodah 4/7/2004 7:42:22 AM

?do,and the per capita expenditure is therefore less also you forget if all this force projection works against small countries which are decidedly weaker . If it is so great why are the UK and US forces chasing iraq and oyther poor buggers when North Korea is sitting their thumbing them openly? thats because all this " force projection" wouldnt matter much then because they would startb throwing nukes around at the" force " first and then their " friendly " countries next. so all this talk is empty if you cannot hit your equal or reasonalbly strong country and get away with it. english still think they are anything worth listening too . the empire is gone and now they are hanging on to US coat tails and beliving they matter.Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't find it funny and says so. I think UK could at most fight and win against indoesia or malyasia in asia or quatar or bahrain in middle eas? We do not need to fight NK as Mike Gulf said (illiterate as well as stupid?) it easier to wait for NK to fall apart and for Kim to die of old age. NK don?t have any delivery vehicles with which to throw their one or two war heads. Please explain why the UK is on the US?s ?coat tails? don?t just say it, explain how. Do you understand the concept of ?Power Projection??

Quote Reply

Polar RE:Price of War, Economics and math 4/7/2004 7:49:43 AM

1. Germany was considered a minor military force in 1933. Then Hitler took the shop over and eight years later they smashed Czecheslovakya,Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium and France to the ground, with minor losses. And if they did not make the strategic failure to attack Stalin before whiping the RAF out, well, welcome to Nazi Europe Union, thank the Gods and Fate it did not happen. 2. Never heard of a Chinese or Indian nuclear plant explode. Your corporate raiders head for China and India for PRODUCTION, hell. Indian informatics are employed all over the world for their quality/price-ratio. PLUS a stable people growth. And you are confident of your economy? Calculate down the rent for your flat and the price of your food and then take a new look on a foreign economy. = I am not that confident about angloamerican-continantaleuropean "We take down anybody anytime" anymore. Even without muslim terrorists planebombing your cities, trainbombing your fellows, carbombing your soldiers or selfbombing yourself. Welcome to 21st century.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NEXT

	News As History - November 21, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us