Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Top Ten Armies of the World
Arditi    3/4/2004 3:54:10 PM
According to the CIA and other Intelligence Services (European, Asian, African) this is the tally - based on a Combination of Manpower, Technology, Firepower, Training, Resources, Available Reserves, and Nuclear Potential (Current or Likely): 1. USA 2. China 3. Germany 4. India 5. France 6. Russia 7. UK 8. Italy 9. Israel 10. Pakistan
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Ad    RE:Canadian Newbie - North Korea   4/5/2004 11:14:08 AM
As I said before, it is useless for any tin-pot state to attempt to blackmail any of the Nuclear powers with a crude nuclear weapon. This is because any attempts to use it would instantly bring about their own demise, it?s a folly, it serves no purpose but to draw attention to yourself, from the main fighters of the axis of evil and severally drain your already weak economy of resources. As was also mentioned by myself, I doubt whether NK has a delivery vehicle suitable for strike against the US mainland. The TU-16 does have a range of 4,475 miles, but with a sub-sonic top speed of 652 mph, it would be easy pickings for any fighter inside the ROKAF or the USAF.
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:Top Ten Armies of the World   4/5/2004 11:20:30 AM
If NK was going to drop a crude ?nuclear? bomb, then I would assume that they would use an Ilyushin IL-28 Beagle. But this would stand less chance as it has an even lower speed and range and it is for day flying only. Once again easy pickings for either air force unless the NK?s MiG-29?s can get off the ground and provide some support/cover for the IL-28.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Canadian Newbie - North Korea   4/5/2004 11:43:08 AM
To add to this, it has long been the US strategic policy that any attack on the US or US forces with weapons of mass destruction would be answered in kind. These are defined as nuclear, biological and chemical. IF North Korea used chemical weapons in a war with South Korea and the US our policy would be to answer in kind. Since we no longer have chemical weapons in our inventory, this only leaves one choice. In 1991, when Iraq still had mustard gas and sarin it was not used, although Iraq had shown no reluctance to use such weapons in the past. The conclusion to be drawn is that they believed we would answer them in kind. I really don't think N. Korea would use chemical weapons since it would essentially be signing their own death certificate. Even if we didn't retaliate with nuclear weapons we would certainly hunt the leaders of the DPRK down and bring them to trial for war crimes. As to China supporting DPRK that is very unlikely. Their largest trading partner is the US. All of the progress they have made economically and with industrial infrastructure would come to a screeching halt as soon as they did so with the loss of the US markets that would follow. China probably wishes the DPRK would just go away at this point, but since they won't they are trying to find some middle ground to keep the region stable. Don't expect PRC to be loaning DPRK any weapons of any sort. Russia is in the same boat. They really don't want to see a war occur on their border either. DPRK is very isolated from the major world powers, which is why they have moved closer to countries like Iran, Iraq (when Hussein was in power), etc. They need international currency and pretty much their only source for it is weapons sales. Those markets are slowly drying up on them. The most likely outcome to the Korean problem is a collapse of the DPRK and the ROK will step in and unify the two. If Kim launches a war as a last ditch attempt to stave off collapse the DPRK's military will inflict some damage, although not the 1 million casualties thrown around and then they will be soundly defeated. The problem is that most of the north is starving and even the army isn't immune. Right now all that most people in the DPRK care about is food. Their army is not going to last long in that situation. Especially as soon as word gets back to them that American and South Korean prisoners of war are eating better than the majority of the country is.
 
Quote    Reply

kuznet    RE:Canadian Newbie - North Korea   4/5/2004 5:10:48 PM
Good points, no arguments. Was only going with info gathered from other media articles. Yet I am convinced they would hit LA somehow.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Canadian Newbie - North Korea   4/5/2004 5:21:27 PM
It's quite possible, if N. Korea actually has a nuclear device, that they would hit the west coast of the US as a prelude to war. It could be done easily enough by loading the device on a freighter. Nuking a coastal city in the US wouldn't be that difficult, provided our intelligence services didn't get wind of it. Imagine what would happen to a country that did something like that. Look at what the US did to Japan for the attack on Pearl Harbor and the American reaction to Al-Qaeda's 9/11 attack. I think that would be a serious miscalculation on the part of Kim and the DPRK leadership. On the other hand, I don't think they really live in the real world. As Tom Clancy might put, it's like dealing with Klingons, the frame of reference is totally different.
 
Quote    Reply

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



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy