I've met some good guys in the German Army, but, there is no way that they are #3. A conscript force of Russo-German expatriots who don't want to be there is no fighting force, hense the reason that they're hiding on their bases in Northern Afghanistan along with the rest of their fellow Europeans. The Anglo armies dominate, US-UK-CAN-AUSSIE. That'a that.

budweiser is an american beer... just wanted to throw that out there.

Budweiser's considered a beer?! Holy crap... I thought it was bottled swamp-water or something.

 

As for it being the #1 beer in Ireland; my goodness, it must have finally happened... the Paddy's are SO #!@*faced that they can't even identify what is and isn't real beer anymore.

I don't know if I should pat 'em on the back or put on a black armband...

 

B.L.

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

This list, to me looking at it objectivly, is a farce. Even with the criteria required as stated above many should not be here. The missing question/requiremnet should be, what have they done and what is their track record.
#1 US- hard to argue that, the 'nam was a political faliure, not militarily. Grenada, Panama and GW1 were exellent training aids, GW2 a success followed by hard lessons learnd and adapted. The 'Gan is another story, more like the 'Nam every day, everyone is getting hurt there. Not just US.

#2 China- no way. They got their asses handed to them by the Viet army in 89-90, they may be building an AF and a blue water navy but have no knowledge of how to use it (yet??) how long will that take? 1-2 generations?

#3 Germany- Not enough practical experiance, we are no longer driving up and down the iron curtain shooting on perfectly manicured firing ranges. I met quite a few sr. nco's in Munster tank school in spring 08, the morale is horrible and the down sizing of their forces is tearing the heart out of them.

#4 India- Logistical/mechanical nightmare. Sub-par production locally will be the death of them in a protracted conflict. Exellent regimented system, great victories have been had (Vs Japan and Germans in WW2)

#5 France- Sure, They keep busy (Bosnia, in Africa ) and are making the transition to a pro army well. Too bad their gov't doesn't have the balls that the FFL posesses.

#6 Russia- Please, they are a joke. They barely took Chechnia (took two attempts) and Georgia was almost a faliure. The lack of pro nco's, out of touch commanders. Only numbers and a sub-par opposition allowed a victory.

#7 Uk- Record speaks for itself, they are too stubborn to ever accept second place.

#8 Italy- Go home, they haven't achieved any thing since the Roman Empire, they exell at copitulation and switching sides. They could't even beat indig African tribes without the use of chemical wpns.

#9Isreal- Talk about the school of hard knocks, Great victories for their people, shamed into a police type service due to internal threat( Gaza/West Bank) Tenatious and resoursefull due to nessesity. Talk about a bad neighbourhood to live in, for all the peoples living there.

#10 Pakistan- HAR! Broken down F-16s( what 40?) 2nd hand Chinese and US mbt's. No navy to speak of and a force that can't or is unwilling to enfoce gov't policy in rebellious provinces. They're half starved and weak, good thing they got nukes or they'd end up a victim of someone else.

 Pound for pound, there are better out there.

 

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

This list, to me looking at it objectivly, is a farce. Even with the criteria required as stated above many should not be here. The missing question/requiremnet should be, what have they done and what is their track record.
#1 US- hard to argue that, the 'nam was a political faliure, not militarily. Grenada, Panama and GW1 were exellent training aids, GW2 a success followed by hard lessons learnd and adapted. The 'Gan is another story, more like the 'Nam every day, everyone is getting hurt there. Not just US.

#2 China- no way. They got their asses handed to them by the Viet army in 89-90, they may be building an AF and a blue water navy but have no knowledge of how to use it (yet??) how long will that take? 1-2 generations?

#3 Germany- Not enough practical experiance, we are no longer driving up and down the iron curtain shooting on perfectly manicured firing ranges. I met quite a few sr. nco's in Munster tank school in spring 08, the morale is horrible and the down sizing of their forces is tearing the heart out of them.

#4 India- Logistical/mechanical nightmare. Sub-par production locally will be the death of them in a protracted conflict. Exellent regimented system, great victories have been had (Vs Japan and Germans in WW2)

#5 France- Sure, They keep busy (Bosnia, in Africa ) and are making the transition to a pro army well. Too bad their gov't doesn't have the balls that the FFL posesses.

#6 Russia- Please, they are a joke. They barely took Chechnia (took two attempts) and Georgia was almost a faliure. The lack of pro nco's, out of touch commanders. Only numbers and a sub-par opposition allowed a victory.

#7 Uk- Record speaks for itself, they are too stubborn to ever accept second place.

#8 Italy- Go home, they haven't achieved any thing since the Roman Empire, they exell at copitulation and switching sides. They could't even beat indig African tribes without the use of chemical wpns.

#9Isreal- Talk about the school of hard knocks, Great victories for their people, shamed into a police type service due to internal threat( Gaza/West Bank) Tenatious and resoursefull due to nessesity. Talk about a bad neighbourhood to live in, for all the peoples living there.

#10 Pakistan- HAR! Broken down F-16s( what 40?) 2nd hand Chinese and US mbt's. No navy to speak of and a force that can't or is unwilling to enfoce gov't policy in rebellious provinces. They're half starved and weak, good thing they got nukes or they'd end up a victim of someone else.

 Pound for pound, there are better out there.

 

Definitely Israel is a military powerhouse, and pound for pound there's an argument to be made that it punches above it's weight more than practically any other power in the world. However, without citing and excessive amount of evidence here, I think some of the assertions you made are inaccurate.

1) Israel already has nukes, everyone knows this, it's just that Israel will not admit it openly.

2) Current world events pretty much show Israel is already happy to go to war without the UN.

3) A nation of 7 million people probably cannot control an entire region with a population of 300+ million, the majority of whom hold extremely prejudiced views towards Israel and Judaism, to put it mildly.

4) Israel does rely on American funding quite abit. If "Let Israel go free" which I think you said, means cutting of that funding, then they would be hampered.

I think we should all hope not for more Israeli-Arab conflict, but for a stable peace. Well that's like stating the obvious actually.

Israel has the chance to become a world power.  The new assault rifle Israel has made is better then the M4.  If we gave them some nukes and let them fight a war without the U.N. tell them what to do.  They will control the middle east

 

The M4 is roughly four decades old. Even with modifications all you need to do is take a look at the top ten rifles worldwide today and select any. The M4 is the US army's sacred cow, there've been reasonable and excellent replacements for many years, but lately it's become painfully obvious. That said the Israelis make excellent arms.
Israel is fantastic within its immediate neighborhood but doesn't have good long or even medium-range power projection with the exception of its airforce, covert and strategic abilities. PR is also somewhat lacking (though good in select areas).

 

Many countries have such fifth coloumns even within their ethnic and religious groups of course, but the radicals are usually quite small. The muslim Palestinians in Israel overwhelmingly support outside forces.

 

 

2-1 in normal state issues and 4-1 in more sensitive issues (according to one poll I read). I suppose 3-1 might be a good estimate.

 

That's a 33% loyalty rate. That drops to 25% and occasionally less than 20%. 

As a British person I'd be interested to know what American posters thought of this? I mean you guys are stretched quite thin in some areas being the world's policeman, would another military superpower take the heat off? Actually that's a leading question, do you guys think the EU would ever have the political will to become one. Just as a pre-amble, overall EU defense procurement's a bit over $300 billion whereas US is probably a whole lot over $500, for most EU nations defense is typically 2-2.5% of GDP, for the US I think it's 4.4 if memory serves. I mean there are potentially alot of issues like Darfur which I think we can all agree are important where the EU has the domestic constituency for action and the US might not.

 

I'm not trying to make statments or advocate anything, I just think they're intresting questions. Personally I think that Europeans, French and British excluded, should stop looking to the US for babysitting and start being part of the solution instead of the faint, arrogant, whiny voice in the background...

(BTW, I'm not a Gaulist or pro-Chirac person, I think any decent European defence policy without good US realtions is an oxymoron, but that's just me personally. If you guys think the only way a United EU defense would work is via that kind of semi-populist sentiment, then that's interesting too, if a bit discouraging.)

 

Alot of the time I think good questions can be more interesting than answers... 

As "history" passes and national predjudices in central Europe go back (and they certainly do), military cooperation grows.  The EU in its current form is a very new institution (especially after the enlargements and treaties of Lissabon, Nizza etc) but it already has taken steps to build up battlegroups.  And even things like this become possible:

 

[XXX]ttp://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/02/07/europe/EU-Germany-France-Troops.php

 

Headline: "German Batallion to be stationed in France"