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

french stratege Rm-Nod: yes 3/31/2004 12:46:50 PM

Yes thank to initial help of the French which build Dimona and provided them French test results in the end of fifties (by a French prime minister who was jewish: interesting) and also design for them then transfer the technology of M660 ballistic missile the father of Jericho 1/2.When the French stopped their help Israelis have stolen secrets from US and also nuclear materials in 67 if I remember: 500 kg of fissile materials! And no reprisals!They master H bomb design at a good level and have the full chain of production and design.

Quote Reply

FABIO RE:My list of top TEN armed forces 3/31/2004 1:55:09 PM

My friends, Of course UK and France have a lot of nukes, but I think the size of the territory would limit both coutries a lot. Russia has developed the best long range missiles, and their air force can attack. Have you ever read about the Russian similar "US-B1"?? the range is unbelieveble. even the SU37 has 1600 miles of range, to attack and go back. the royal navy would be attacked a lot. And a conter attack of Russia at such sizes territories as UK or france. Talking about nukes... How many TOPOLS with 10 warheads would be necessary to erase both from the map? I say again that UK is like a US puppet, without US help, UK would not attack countires like INDIA, China. about north and south korea. Are you so naive that South would beat north withou US support? please friend. South korea shaked their knees when US has taken out some troops from there. All of the south equipments (jets, tanks, etc) are owned from US. South korea has just few F5 jets.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:My list of top TEN armed forces 3/31/2004 3:05:54 PM

Fabio wrote: "All of the south equipments (jets, tanks, etc) are owned from US. South korea has just few F5 jets" What are you talking about. ROK has a huge arsenal that they own. Yes it is American manufactured, but owned by the ROK. They have one of the best trained conscript armies in the world, one that could give almost any professional army a run for the money inside Korea and performs reasonably well outside Korea (ROK in Vietnam). The reason that ROK didn't want the US to withdraw their forces is that Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are nut jobs who might take that as a sign they can attack. The DPRK leadership may well believe they can win a war, even though it is fairly clear to everyone outside Korea (except you apparently) that ROK will eat them for lunch. Besides that, US forces in ROK are their protection against potential Chinese aggression. Think it through.

Quote Reply

RM-Nod RE:My list of top TEN armed forces 4/1/2004 3:00:23 AM

"Of course UK and France have a lot of nukes, but I think the size of the territory would limit both coutries a lot." It takes only a few nukes to wipe out a countries entire infrastructure. Russia is vulnerable to this, there is no need to wipe any whole country off the map and being able to do so does not make a country any more powerful than another. "their air force can attack. Have you ever read about the Russian similar "US-B1"?? the range is unbelieveble." Russia's entire military is very under budgeted. It's airforce or any other part of it's military lacks the logistical capabilities for any long range attack. A few TU's going on a bombing run is not attacking, they would be shot out of the sky before they get anywhere near French or British territories (and many other territories for that matter). "even the SU37 has 1600 miles of range, to attack and go back." Err the SU-37 has a range of 2000 miles but it's still in development, it's not in service. Russia can't afford to produce many new aircraft. Do you actually know how far it is from Russia to the UK? A 2000 mile range is not going to give it much time to do anything except get shot down. "royal navy would be attacked a lot. And a conter attack of Russia at such sizes territories as UK or france." What are you talking about? The UK attacking Russia? Ofcourse the UK would be attack doing that but so what, Russia would be attacked if they attack Britain. Oh wait no they wouldn't because ofcourse they can't attack Britain can they. "I say again that UK is like a US puppet, without US help, UK would not attack countires like INDIA, China." The US wouldn't attack China or India, no one would. How does that prove the UK is a US puppet?! That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. So how is the UK a US puppet when we are one of only three countries with real power projection, are one of the 5 world nuclear powers, have disagreed with the US on many occasions, produce our own weapons, have actually fought against US interests before, are the only country to fight a full spectrum war since Korea etc etc etc. This is just one of the stupid things people come out with because of the war in Iraq, I'd be suprised if you could actually tell me anything about the UK that doesn't come out of the mouth of some anti UK-US newspaper.

Quote Reply

french stratege Rm -Nod 4/1/2004 6:52:07 AM

Rm -Nod to wipe out 70 % of US infrastructure take 450 150/300 kt average power nukes!(according to DOD calculation and without targeting US nuclear forces and population) Not a few! Germany received the equivalent of 400 hiroshima bomb in WW2 on a much smaller territory and managed to fight and produce weapon to the extreme limit.

Quote Reply

FABIO RE:My list of top TEN armed forces 4/1/2004 7:26:03 AM

Ok friend. You are right. The "falkland war" was a GREAT test to UK. Uk didnt have US support. eheheh it is FUNNY Russia has no capability to produce a mass planes, how do you say it? Russia is the most export military equpments currently... but still supllying China India, and other countries... I will not discuss about political subjects, but UK alone would not beat Irak so easier(as an example) Every war, you war with support. Even in FalKLANDS u have the French help. France did not send some Exocets missiles that were bought by argentina. Would not change the victory, but will be sense more problems. Russia is a third world country. No questions. But with the capacity of ERASE UK from the map. "What are you talking about? The UK attacking Russia? Ofcourse the UK would be attack doing that but so what, Russia would be attacked if they attack Britain. Oh wait no they wouldn't because ofcourse they can't attack Britain can they. " You must calm down to write... cuz anybdy can't understand about this: "I say again that UK is like a US puppet, without US help, UK would not attack countires like INDIA, China." I meant that UK HAS NO CAPACITY and logistic power enough to fight against countries like those. Oh, wait, FALKLAND ALONE was a GREAT experience.ahahaha Please, do not be so naive, UK alone could not win a war against great countries. Even in WW2 , if wasn't US, or even Russia, you would be talking german as well my friend. Tell me what kind of equipment UK would use to attack Russia. Typhoon: it is obsolete comparing to Russian jets. Harriers?? attacking MIG from 70's in Irak was a success. Carriers?? would be destroyed with a couple of some anti carrier missiles, that Russia has the best. (to defend theirselves from US age of cold war). Not using subs.. Russia has developed maybe the best systems defences of their logistical and strategical cities, cuz US was a great threat. Do you really think that they forget it? About the SU37, you forgot that 2000 miles is without the maximum payload. Ok?? I will not discuss with you anymore, if you think that BRITAIN is the "most power projection", the idea is yours. If you think that UK (read Tony blair) isn't a muppet of US, the Idea is yours. If our president Bush , Blair would clean. "have disagreed with the US on many occasions" about very important things?? like Zambia or something like it?? Regards

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Dos Vidania Fabio... 4/1/2004 7:42:47 AM

You find the Falklands war funny? This was the last war fought by any major Western Power on there own. Maybe you could laugh, if Russia was one able to pay for its navy, two send that navy three thousand miles away, lacking appropriate Air-Superiority fighters, land and win a war. ?Please, do not be so naive, UK alone could not win a war against great countries? Of course not you CRETIN! But neither could the US! Nobody could, that?s why there major powers you fool! Maybe you would like to comment on how effectively Russia is dealing with peasants armed with AK-47?s, who seem to be ripping apart the decaying Russian military inside Chechnya? Are you aware of the Typhoons systems? No, your not, so how can you pass judgement? You can?t afford to place the SU-37 in frontline combat squadrons, so Fabio, the joke appears to be on the bear. The only nations Fabio, which can project power and in terms of size and power of that projection are in this order; 1)US 2)Britain 3)France Why is Britain second? Second largest Navy in the World. Largest Sea/air-lift in Europe. Largest Sub-marine force in Europe (The Russians can only keep four SSN?s operational) largest Marine and airborne capabilities in Europe. And most importantly, the largest logistical supply system in Europe.

Quote Reply

french stratege Ad 4/1/2004 7:50:14 AM

Ad : you could rank UK above France with these facts but the lack of real fighters for UK compared to France air force (and French navy) oberate that and I rank them on a par for independant intervention for that reason (also for better C4ISR and owning of our own reco statellites for France).I said that to be polite and avoid any new flame treads but personnaly I prefer French structure of force to British one for TODAY.But if UK have 200 Eurofighters and two aircraft carrier with awacs and F35 this would change if France doesn't improve and thus your rank will be correct.

Quote Reply

FABIO South Korea- Huge equipments?? 4/1/2004 7:57:46 AM

Huge equipments?? owned by SK Really?? I didnt know. Maybe I am misinformed... What I know that for an example, that SK has 10 F16 (owned by SK) and NK has 30 MIG29. SK has more than 100 F5 jets. It is obsolete as the NK mig23, but the mis are still better. I am not considering about how good the pilots are. OK? You can see: link link you can see a little bit more at: link but on this case: the SK power is included the US troops and equipments there. Perhaps SK will be (mlilitary better) than NK in some years, but currenly, alone they are not. Because this US still there. But, China would war against SK ?? ths is bull, would be a tragedy to China economical situation, cuz SK is a great importer of chinese products. Where did you take this information?? maybe I could be wrong. regards

Quote Reply

french stratege The first circle of power 4/1/2004 7:58:26 AM

I would like to add to others that powers without full range (nuclear subs to stealthy fighters)independant weapon production and design, and without modern deterrent, nukes and reco/transmission satellites do not belong to the first circle of powers! So for now Germany is not in it (but could in few years if they really want and no external great power fight that) The first rank is clearly: US Russia France and UK (on a par and to avoid endless discussion) Japan China India and no other power in the first circle (even if Israel has atomic bombs and good self defense force thanks to US help)

Quote Reply

french stratege Fabio 4/1/2004 8:01:18 AM

The strategy page database is a joke (and expect to be delete as I like this site: but this database is not serious). However south korea belong to second circle with germany, Israel, Turky, Sweden, Greece, Pakistan or Taiwan.

Quote Reply

FABIO RE:Fabio 4/1/2004 8:04:48 AM

maybe I can agree, abou this databases, and I can discuss with you, instead others that are tottaly UNPOLITE. The databases are not current... but is a start to have FACTS, not DEDUCTIONS. I agree about your "1 circle", just Japan I disagree. C U

Quote Reply

french stratege Japan case: virtual nuclear power 4/1/2004 8:10:39 AM

For Japan: they have work a lot on nuclear matters and can field ICBM with MIRV in one year (design already tested under civilian coverage studies and nukes components and materials available for FIVE THOUSANDS nukes: they have publicly aknowledge that last year from the governement).And they have almost full independant design capacities and full independant production capacity.Also they have reco satellites and a good navy for self defense.

Quote Reply

FABIO RE:Dos Vidania Fabio... 4/1/2004 8:15:39 AM

"Of course not you CRETIN! But neither could the US! Nobody could, that?s why there major powers you fool! Maybe you would like to comment on how effectively Russia is dealing with peasants armed with AK-47?s, who seem to be ripping apart the decaying Russian military inside Chechnya?" 1 - Dont forget you British education, cuz I have not cursed u. Ok? 2 - Neither Could US?? maybe you can post a new topic. "Can US win a war alone" - OFF COURSE US CAN. 3 - Checheny, currently is a Guerrila war. Is not troops against others, is not Air force vs. other. In some time, you will see in Irak the same. U cannot compare go 3000 miles, and fight against few old mirages, and no SUBS / and no defence systems. To a war against Russia. It's like compare Irak and US, even worst.

Quote Reply

Ad RE:Dos Vidania Fabio... 4/1/2004 8:43:11 AM

I know Britain at this point in time is only operating the Tornado F3 as its air superiority fighter, which isn?t as moderns the Rafle. However Britain, as you well know, has an order of 232 Typhoons set for completion in 2007. RAF pilots have already begun to test the machines, and it was found that they out preformed the F-15 by a long way in a two on two combat test last month in the Peak District. I would disagree with France being level, as they lack the ability to maintain troops in the field for the same length of time as Britain. The FN is a lot smaller than the Royal Navy, which can operate on its own for 30 days with out re-supplying. The F/A2 is an excellent aircraft and I am sad to see it go, and I would like to see it in service until the F-35 enters. Although Britain will be using GR9/A?s in the interim, which are not capable of maintain air superiority, like the F/A2. However in terms of conflict the possible targets in which Britain might go to war against would be; Iran, Syria etc. Where the RAF would dominate the sky with the Typhoon and where the T45?s would be more than capable of providing air-cover. Although this is getting off the point as I do value France very highly as a military power. As far as FABIO goes. The US possibly could win a mainstream conflict against China and India, yet they wouldn?t become involved due to the high sacrifices and casualties that they would take. Chinas best deterrent isn?t her Nuclear weapons, but here endless amounts of (ill-trained and ill-equipped) conscripts. ?3 - Checheny, currently is a Guerrila war. Is not troops against others, is not Air force vs. other. In some time, you will see in Irak the same.? Britain fought a very successful anti-guerrilla war in northern Ireland against a far better armed and trained opponent and still cam off on top. Hence why the PIRA signed the Good Friday agreement and why Northern Ireland is still in the Union, despite the suspension of the Northern Irish assembly. ?U cannot compare go 3000 miles, and fight against few old mirages, and no SUBS / and no defence systems. To a war against Russia. It's like compare Irak and US, even worst.? For one you clearly lack any concept of the Argentine capabilities at the time. The AAF was certainly far better suited to fighting an Air war than the RAF. Also I wasn?t comparing the Falklands to Russia. I was commenting on how you seemed to think its funny that a power like Britain was able to sustain and fight a war 3,000 miles away. Something that no power has done on its own since. Not forgetting that Russia would stand no chance of fighting such a conflict as you lack power projection. And I haven?t curse either. Cretin and fool is possibly the mildest forms of insults I could of slung at you.

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