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

ex-98C RE:Top Ten Armies of the World- Histocrit 6/2/2004 7:47:14 PM

Well Worchester I don't know who history will pick as the ultimate power, though both the British Empire and The US pos Civil War would have to be highly considered. The Difference between the teo lay in the projection of their power. Britain was no doubt the dominant power of its time, but it always had rival(s) of nearly equal power. Its farflung Empire was controled by diplomacy, local alliances, and shrewd applications of small modern military forces. The only way that the British held India was the fact that they allied themselves with various Indian groups. The British could not have held that land without local support. The US on the other hand has no peer in its military dominance now or in its economic dominece of he past one hundred years. The difficulty that America has us that it doesn't understand how to deal with other cultures. We prefer our battles smple and stright forward with black and white issues. We have Trouble in Iraq because we choose not tojust smash our way to victory. Also war is more "Humane" now making it much harder tofight an enemy with no morals, when you must fight by the ruiles..no matter how much fire power you have.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:Top Ten Armies of the World- 98 6/2/2004 7:51:26 PM

Why is it some people have difficulty with my name? Dysleixa ruels?

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:Top Ten Armies of the World- 98 6/2/2004 7:59:13 PM

Missing the point. Make it simple: 1 power controlled more of the planet than anyone else in history; another power has trouble controlling Iraq. As for the economics; the US did not become THE premier economy until 1945, so say 60 years not 100 years and that is a function of size and the ruination of every other competitor. Obviously the old "competitors" (Europe) are recovering their old economic positions - these things go in cycles - and per capita GDP in Germany, France, Uk is not dissimilar from the US. Put another way: what is the point of the US having all this power if we can't actually control anything? Is it "real" power or just "let's all blow up the world" theory? Plenty of people seem able to ignore our "leadership".

Quote Reply

Warhammer RE:Top Ten Armies of the World 6/2/2004 8:00:37 PM

To further the point that the United States undoubtedly holds the #1 spot, think of what we could do if we were really in a tough spot. With a military that has about 2-3 million troops in it, we have easily conquered 2 nations in 2 years with only a handful of losses on our side incurred.(most of which caused by simple attrition which could be lessened if we decided to get tougher on insurgents) Then look at the budget we have on the military, and compare that to our GDP. Something in the area of 500 billion a year, at a cost of only 5% of our GDP. Then take a look back in time at WW2. Our current amount of troops comprises about 1% of our population. But, in WW2 we fielded an army of roughly 15 million, which was about 15% of the population of about 100million in the 1940's.(correct me if I am wrong) Transfer that over in todays numbers, and think of the force we could field. Going full wartime production, we could easily field a force of 50 million, including tanks, ships, and planes given not more than 5 years to prepare. Not to mention the fact that we are the only nation in the world that could simultaneously prepare a huge force at home, meanwhile shredding the industries and militaries of whatever nations decided to rise up against us. At the moment, there isn't a navy in the world that would last more than a year against ours. And once all opposing navies are taken out, there wouldn't be a shipyard left standing that could put out more than a fishing boat in defense. We have a carrier battle group in every sea, that each in their own right, could take out entire navies that might sail in to challenge them. Given 2-3 years, our navy could triple in size, and there wouldn't be a thing that any opposing force could do about it. Defense projects that are at the moment struggling such as the F-22, would go into production without ceasing. 400 at the moment sounds like an awful lot in terms of dollars, but we would build thousands if we felt the need. Projects such as the anti-missile laser systems would be completed and put in to mass production in far shorter time than could ever be hoped of in peace-time production. The largest economy in the world goes full wartime mobilization, and does so knowing full well that it won't really see the profit until after the war is over. The other top 9 nations in the world couldn't gang up on the US and hope to win in less than 10 years without using nuclear weapons. The advent of precision munitions and satelite monitoring has put the US in such a position of power, it is almost sick. The location of every factory, shipyard, staging area, and even individual warship no longer relies on a flyby from some spyplane, but can be found out, targeted, and assinged a bomb with just the readjustment of a satelite or 2. Unlike in WW2, if you spot a shipyard, industrial complex, or other high priority target, you don't need 100 bombers to take it out. You only need one, or a mere handfull. Well, one bomber, or a few fighters. Think of a B-52 with hundreds of smart bombs flying over modern europe, after all the air defenses have been supressed. No longer hoping to hit that factory, but leveling dozens of factories in every sortie. Meanwhile an ocean away, the United States war machine is producing without contest,protected from every enemy ship or plane that even comes close. Any that do get in and get a shot off are taken out shortly after, and don't cause much damage anyway. We don't even have to land any troops, other than to take key resource locations and objectives. Just reduce the opposing nations to third world countries until they either surrender, or have no industry left to produce so much as a wrench, let alone a tank/ship/plane for which to use a wrench on. Of course, it isn't very likely to happen that we would have to fight the top 9, but if we had to, there wouldn't be much that could stop us other than all out nuclear war. More likely it would happen that Great Britain, Israel, Canada and at least a handful of countries such as Australia, Japan, and S. Korea would be on our side.(depending on what started the war, china attacking taiwan, the EU getting organized and feisty, whatever) Add Great Britain to the US side in the world vs US scenario, and you pretty much put a total lockdown on the worlds oceans. Sorry, for the extrapolation,(and a large amount of what might seem like plain american arrogance) but someone asked why the US is automatically thrown on top, and I just had to reply with something. :)

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Top Ten Armies of the World- Histocrit 6/2/2004 8:07:09 PM

Well that is only true because of the characteristics of the Empire, it was a purely economical, money making system. The main goal wasn?t to indoctrinate every inch of the globe into thinking the British way. Therefore was there any need to keep several hundred thousand British troops in India? After all, Britain was making money, the local Rajahs were making money and if there troops could join a Sepoy Battalion and be paid more as a Red Coated infantryman, than he could as a Mahratta, then why not? Why pay over the odds? Just shrewd British business as you point out. As for rivalry. Well maybe on land there were other forces which outnumbered the British, but then again that boils down to the old chestnut of ?Its not the size but what you do with it that counts?, and this features more so on land than anywhere else. No other nation could rival the technology, the discipline and the experience of a British infantryman. Not to mention that no other nation had anywhere near the same amount of financial clout to back it up with. And of course somewhere down the line Sand Hurst produces a genius like old Arthur, which, helps. As for the Royal Navy, then I?m afraid that there simply was no other close rival; in both numbers or experience. The two power standard, which ironically enough was in effect, but not as Royal Navy doctrine until an American Admiral pointed it out, made the Royal Navy twice the size of both the French and at various points German, US etc navies, combined. And in the pre SSN/CBG/TLAM/AEGIS days, an extremely powerful force indeed. As for America, I am baffled that the worlds most culturally diverse nation, struggles to relate to a culture which is already present in the US. I?m aware that the WASP?s (with the exception of JFK of course) have pretty much all ways run the show however, which may be the sticking point. As old European values die hard, even after several hundred years. The need to adapt to a situation is a paramount, things change and you have to change with them, to do so is to be successful. To not, is to go the way of the Viceroy.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Top Ten Armies of the World- Histocrit 6/2/2004 8:18:15 PM

Worcester (I have no trouble with the name mate, I live but five minutes drive from the Shire) I think the difference comes in this. 12th August 1949. The British Empire wasn?t overly brutal as Empires go, but Britain always had the option of putting the boot in. Just like in Iraq eighty years ago, RAF carpet bombings ordered to put the rebels in check. For America to do this, as immoral as it may be in the first instance, can?t put 100 terrorists up against a wall and have them shot. But then again, look at the trouble we had of holding onto Ireland. Putting 10 Catholic Nationalists up against a wall, was never any help, as I doubt whether it would be in this case.

Quote Reply

ex-98C RE:Top Ten Armies of the World- 98 6/2/2004 8:51:16 PM

Sorry about the nbame Worcester, but I have to disagree with some of your points. The US economy was the worlds largest by the 1880's and was certianly preeminent by the early 1900s. We are having some troubles in Iraq, but that is because we have CHOSEN to acccept them. Lets remember that the British Empire was not a sea of tranquility there were numerous revolts in India and the Boer Wars make what we are going through in Iraq look like a picnic. We are alos talking about differnet times, the British WANTED an Empire..we don't. Plenty of people do ignore out leadership, and plenty of people ignored the British, but they can't ignore our PRESENCE. Our culture is everywhere, our money, our language are dominant in world affairs. The UNtied states is every bit as powerful now a the British Empire was in its heyday..the power is just shown differently.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Top Ten Armies of the World- 98 6/3/2004 7:44:52 AM

Your language? Hmm, that?s a new one on me. I know American dialects differ due to the archaic nature of the lexis used, i.e. Fall, being a 17th century word. Yet I don?t think Cherokee, Sioux or the Apache language is rampant through out the world.

Quote Reply

bigtasty RE:Top Ten Armies of the World- 98 6/3/2004 6:32:37 PM

I kind of agre with 98c when he says that the us has as much power a the British empire in its heyday,but not fully. I think that america could have a legacy to leave the world that would far out strip anything the british empire left.An that is something the people and leaders should realise,and strive for. Whilst some people may argue the british empire was an oppressive,and expansionist entity,it really did give something back,it was not completely an `evil empire`as some others have been,it took time but it spread democracy,leagal systems,scientific and medical advances,etc etc the world over.Even Hitler admired the stability the empire brought to the world,this was brought about by entereprising and strong individuals and leaders who knew what was right for the world and werent afraid to get on with it. The americans have so much capablity,they could usher in a new world order,or even a true american empire that i hear so many people thinks exists,for the modern world,not soley through force of arms but economic prosperity,a better way of life,the american dream for the world that chooses it.Or needs it.

Quote Reply

avatar RE:Top Ten Armies of the World- 98 6/3/2004 6:55:41 PM

AAAAAHHHHHH the american dream, pah . anyway i agree with warhammer that america does have the most vast and technologically advanced army but your over confidence in it annoyed me alot .think about it ,if there were to be a massive war between the us and the rest of the world im pretty sure that the uk , the commonwealth countries and other allies the world order would side with europe due to its deep involvment in the european union and tyes to many of the countries in europe. This ofcourse is an assumption but one that i have thought over.

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