Top Ten Armies of the World

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

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 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NEXT

PuckaMan No Nukes 4/9/2004 9:40:25 AM

Nuclear weapons are a completely different ballgame than conventional military or, in this case armies. Nukes cannot be taken into account on this thread, if they were, the thread would be titled something along the lines of 'Top Ten Strategic Powers' or similar. There is an enormous difference between sending an expeditionary force to somewhere than threatening or actually using nukes. Nuclear weapons are a strategic weapon only, not multilevel like armies. These threads are largely pointless anyway. Pucka

Quote Reply

Advocate Of REason RE:No Nukes-pucka 4/9/2004 11:49:32 AM

What I'm saying that if we dont count nukes, then the comparison is unfair. To use my last example, if the UK had no nukes then their army would be much bigger, because the whole point of them getting nukes was to discourege the soviets from invading western europe, so if nukes were not developed the UK army would have to be much bigger to provide the same detterent. Now if we look at India for example, they only got nukes very recently, and they have been building a giant army for a long time to provide a good war detterent to Pakistan and China. So in the near future as India gets more nukes its army will be somewhat reduced. So the comparison with no nukes is unfair because nukes make up a different portion of overall defence for different countries, so by taking away nukes you unbalance the equation.

Quote Reply

french stratege RE:britain and france 4/18/2004 5:57:28 PM

France is the first European nation after US to get the command of Nato Response Force (NFR5) with level 2 before UK which is scheduled to get it in 2006.Who said that France is less trained than UK and has its capacity below in planning large scale operation? Only France now and UK after are scheduled among NATO nation to plan large scale NATO air force operation without US means at US quality level. A confirmation of what I mentioned about French superiority in C4ISR over UK. France is testing for improved Mica the new guidance system dual mode IR/radar.Improved mica will be a thousand year more advanced than updated Amraam.Also French command ordered last week 336 new generation sight helmet for Rafale.A good indication about french governement commitment for Rafale.

Quote Reply

PuckaMan RE:No Nukes-Advocate Of REason 4/18/2004 6:10:32 PM

You miss my point. I was saying Nukes are a Strategic weapon, under control of Nations, NOT armies. Whatever jurisdiction they fall under in various countires doesn't change the fact that they require political and governmental permission to be used. It doesn't unbalance the equation at all. As I said, nukes are very different from armies. The Size of armies is a relection of the Strategic position of the country, and undoubtedly nukes have an impact on that. I assume that this thread is talking about the nuts and bolts of specific armies, as opposed to the srategic strengths of a nation. If that were the case, the thread would be about the 'Top Ten Stragically powerful nations' or similar. Pucka

Quote Reply

fullamongo RE:No Nukes-Advocate Of REason 4/19/2004 8:57:45 AM

Probably the best way to see which army is better is to do a thought experiment in which the countries border each other or at least close to each other and see who would beat who. If you take into account other outside factors you begin to stray away from the core issue. EG: Ireland has a small army cos realisticly its only possible enemy is the UK. We'd never have a chance of beating the UK in an all out war. Conversly the UK would back us against anyone else 'cos it wouldn't be in their interest to have another world power on their doorstep. An increase in the size of irelands army wouldn't make it any more or less safe so the army is kept small. For the purpose of this thread all these points are irrelevent! I havn't addressed weather Ireland's army is any good or not. I hope you see my point. We should focus on actual military strength folks not on how many overseas staging posts you have or if your in a military alliance etc.

Quote Reply

Salvo RE:No Nukes-Advocate Of REason 4/19/2004 10:28:06 AM

You can't take into account Nukes especially for Euro countries (and especially especially UK) because most of these weapons can't be fired unless the US says so. In terms of military projection, the EU countries are just Vassal states directly under the countrol of the US.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:britain and france 4/19/2004 10:40:41 AM

And the UK has commanded the larger and more important NATO Allied Rapid Reaction Corps since 1999 - including Bosnia and Kosovo. It is formed around the UK's Air Assault Brigade with an integrated aviation component unmatched by any other European country. The new NATO Reaction Forces are designed to let Europeans do more in peacemaking - the Dutch have their own "Force" and the Spanish have their own "Force". No criticism of the French army, but try to put this in perspective; when France gets some heavy lift helicopters and strategic airlift and a few dozen attack helicopters it may come close; until then it is not the same as the ARRC. Please don't pretend it is.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:britain and france 4/19/2004 10:42:52 AM

And the UK as our ally is currently engaged in more pratice than mere paper theory.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:No Nukes-Advocate Of REason - Salvo 4/19/2004 10:53:42 AM

Your politics do not concur with reality. Both the UK and France have always maintianed independent deterrents - made more urgent by France leaving NATO command in 1953. If the UK and France had ever been convinced that the US was 100% certain to engage in nuclear war to protect western Europe, then the UK and France wouldn't have gone to the trouble and cost of acquiring nukes. In fact the reverse is true; US nuclear weapons on US bases in the UK have always been under "dual key" control - i.e. they could and cannot be launched from the UK without UK permission. One of the features of the nuclear "trip wire" was to ensure that the US could not be separated from Europe. This is why the Soviet deployment of SS-20 missiles in the 1980's - which could only hit western Europe - was received by the deployment of US cruise missiles in the UK and Italy, precisely to keep the US engaged in any conflict. And by the old jokes that the Royal Navy orders were for 12 ICBM's to go for Moscow and 4 for New York.

Quote Reply

trib RE:No Nukes-Advocate Of REason - Salvo 4/20/2004 1:42:38 AM

salvo, UK got nukes they can fire without US agreement and it's more true about french nukes which is NOT under US control like you said. On the power projection, please tell me one thing since when UK and France (The 2 EU country with power projection capability) takes orders from US for their military deployment? The Falkland was a US idea? Deplying French troops in Chad, and ivory coast was a US idea? Your vision of the world is somewhat limited, it's true no one can disagree US is the Main military power at this present time, but please, It's not the only military power in the world and EU army are not under strict leadership of the White house. UK enter the Irak Conflict because they want to, not because US ordered them to go.

Quote Reply

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 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NEXT