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
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
AdamB       2/19/2007 1:33:45 PM
"Now for the chinese arsenal it's estimated at 2000 warheads. We can turn your ENTIRE country into a glass crater and still have extra warheads to spare."
--------------------------------
 
The British can turn the whole of China into a "glass crater" and still have nukes to spare.
 
How many nukes would be enough to destroy China?  It can't be much more than 5, maybe not even that.
 
That's why the AMOUNT of nukes a country has is negligible.  It only takes a few dozen to be able to destroy the planet.
 
Quote    Reply

AdamB       2/19/2007 1:37:27 PM
I don't think the Chinese have still over the First Opium War of 1839-1842 against Britain which was a decisive victory for the British and which gave Britain Hong Kong.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       2/19/2007 1:46:59 PM

"Now for the chinese arsenal it's estimated at 2000 warheads. We can turn your ENTIRE country into a glass crater and still have extra warheads to spare."

--------------------------------

 

The British can turn the whole of China into a "glass crater" and still have nukes to spare.

 

How many nukes would be enough to destroy China?  It can't be much more than 5, maybe not even that.

 

That's why the AMOUNT of nukes a country has is negligible.  It only takes a few dozen to be able to destroy the planet.



you are greatly overestimating the power of nuclear weapons.  5 weapons would barely be enough to do a thorough job of destroying beijing much less all of china.  the throw weight of the typical nuke is down from the good old days because with improved guidance and mirvs you just don't need 20 megatonne montrosities now.
 
Quote    Reply

AdamB       2/19/2007 1:51:35 PM
"So Britain in effect had complete naval and land dominance during the course of the war and at least air-superiority, and they just barely pulled it off"
--------------------------------------------
 
The Falklands War - 2nd April to 14th June 1982
 
Britain
 
258 killed
777 wounded
59 taken prisoner
---------------------------------
Argentina
 
649 killed
1,068 wounded
11,313 taken prisoner
 
Yeah, you can see it was close.
 
The British also broke a world record during the Falkands War - the RAF bombing raids against the Argentinians were the longest-ranged bombing raids in history, which were only surpassed by the United States during the Gulf War in 1991 by USAF Boeing B-52G Stratofortesses flying from the continental United States but using forward-positioned tankers.
 
As it says in Wikipedia -
 
Black Buck raids
An Avro Vulcan, as used for the Black Buck raidshttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/Vulcan.planview.640pix.jpg/250px-Vulcan.planview.640pix.jpg" width=250 longDesc=/wiki/Image:Vulcan.planview.640pix.jpg>
An RAF Avro Vulcan, as used for the Black Buck raids

The Black Buck raids were a series of five attacks on the Islands by RAF Avro Vulcan bombers of 44 Squadron, staged from Wideawake airbase on Ascension Island, close to the equator.

On 1 May operations against the Falklands opened with the "Black Buck 1" attack on the airfield at Stanley. The Vulcan had originally been designed for medium-range stand-off nuclear missions in Europe and did not have the range to fly to the Falklands, requiring several in-flight refuellings. The RAF's tanker planes were mostly converted Handley Page Victors with similar range, so they too had to be refuelled in the air. Thus, a total of 11 tankers were required for only two Vulcans, a massive logistical effort, given that both the tankers and bombers had to use the same strip. The attack yielded only a single hit on the runway. It was reported at the time that the song “Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet” by BTO was relayed over loudspeakers as the planes flew over. [citation needed]

Only minutes after the RAF's Black Buck 1, nine FAA BAE Sea Harrier FRS Mk 1s from HMS Hermes followed up the raid by dropping BL755 cluster bombs on Stanley and the smaller grass airstrip at Goose Green. Both missions scored aircraft kills on the ground, as well as causing some damage to the airfield infrastructure. The aircraft had taken off from the deck of HMS Invincible, and although attached BBC reporter Quote    Reply

AdamB       2/19/2007 1:58:29 PM
"you are greatly overestimating the power of nuclear weapons.  5 weapons would barely be enough to do a thorough job of destroying beijing much less all of china.  the throw weight of the typical nuke is down from the good old days because with improved guidance and mirvs you just don't need 20 megatonne montrosities now"
----------------------------------------
 
Nuclear weapons nowadays are a lot more powerful than they used to be.  The ones dropped by the US on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are little more than firecrackers in comparison.
 
Here's a scary fact for you - each of Britain's nuclear weapons have yields of four megatons.  But just ONE megaton exploded on the ground or slightly above ground creates a crater about 0.3 miles (0.5 km in funny measurements) in diameter and levels practically everything in a few mile or kilometer radius.  It is enough to crush underground bunkers at a depth of about 1000 feet. 
 
Now multiply all that devastating power by four and you see the amount of damage and destruction each of Britain's nuclear bombs can do.  And Britain has around 200 of them.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Knuckleheads.   2/19/2007 2:53:36 PM
1. More or less this is the target.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/china_rel01.jpg">Let me save you the trouble of counting all the targets you have to hit. Just city killing its about 200 on the list.

A typical British method would be to use this;

Trident II D5



In service : 1990 Range : 6000NM Guidance : Stellar Inertial
Body dimensions : 13.410m x 2.11m Launch weight : 58900kg C.E.P. : 120m
Trident D5 was developed by Lockheed Martin and was bought by the Royal Navy in place of the planned C4 which was being phased out of production. The missile carries seven 300KT MARV warheads and is propelled by a three stage solid fuel rocket motor.

Now the British designed warhead is slightly less powerful than itsd US W-88 equivalent but when we bandy around 1.4* 10e15joules or  2*10e15joules  is  rather foolish . its like asking whether the fireball is going to be 400 meters in radius with a similar sized crater or  530 meters in radius.

Since a British ballistic missile submarine carries 16 D-5s we can confidently number crunch. 112 warheads.

Take a standard target city, Beijing; which is about 16000 sq kilometers in area and holds about 13 million people. To  simplify, that is a square patch of ground roughly 127 kilometers on a side.

Now a Chevelane can guarantee kill everybody via airburst within 2 kilometers radius of the zero center  of the fireball.
It takes a minimum of 9 Chevalanes to kill everybody in Beijing.

There are fifty other target sets that are as large as Beijing or larger in the PRC. There are 150 target sets that are about half to 1/4 the size that would require 4 warheads each.

Do the math.

450+600=1050 bombs.

Britain at her maximum has possibly 448 weapons in her submarines and may have again as many[much smaller yield] air delivered tactical nuclear weapons.

That would cover 0.3% of the PRC surface area and maybe kill 15% of the people.

The United States which would go into the job with the doctrine of assured destruction; as in making sure there was no PRC at the end of the process, programmed no less than 2000 warheads as a minimum to get the job done.

Pray that this insanity is never played out by the numbers, AdamB. People, who write glibly about  this insanity, should  be made to view the films that the  Japanese and the Americans made about the aftermaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you think this is some glib exercise to write about and chestthump about and feel no sense of pure horror as you actually  crunch the numbers, then you are CRAZY.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       2/19/2007 5:37:30 PM
Adamb you are quite ignorant of reality of nukes.Herald is right on this subject.
A atomic weapon size of Hiroshima is 15 kt max and has a radius of destruction of 2 km for heavy damage and 3 for light.So respectively 12 sqkm and 30 sqkm only.And even some people survived in heavy damage zones, some only at few hundred meters but in concrete building.You can say you would probably get a 100 000 killed for a hiroshima bomb if weather is good (bad weather reduce effect of thermal shock) and people not warned like in Hiroshima (unlikely).
If warned the number of dead could 10 time less.
Now surface of destruction of a nuke is proportional to E¨^(2/3) which means that a bomb 1000 time more powerfull do a 100 time more damage.A 300 kt nukes would do only 7,3 time more damage so 90 and 210 sqkm.
China has 1300 million  people and 470 million in 368,000 village!
Even you target the urban population of 800 milllion you would need more than 3000 Hiroshima to get only 260 million dead if not warned or maybe 30 milllion only  if warned.3000 Hiroshima = 400 * 300 kt bombs!
Even if you multiply by 10 this number of warheads you would not reach small willages and more Chinese would stay alive than the whole population of US and much more if warned.
And China would have its main infrastructure destroyed but with only peasant and the saved elite (even an hundred of thousands of engineers,  managers , doctors..), China would be rebuild in less than 100 years to a modern country.
People from Rand Corporation like Hermann Kahn, key strategist of the sixties, have calculated curves giving the necessary number of people to kill to achieve a signifacant victory:
If you kill 20 millions of US peoples, US are rebuild in less than 10 years and achive the same GDP before war
You would need to kill more than 200 millions , to have USA crippled to an 100 years to recover at the same GDP and power.
Germany has received the equivalent of 400 Hiroshima bombs in WW2 , was still fighting and was rebuild in less than 20 years.
It is why you need at least hundreds of nukes to get a credible MAD and to be able to use also nukes to strike military targets.I think that 350 is a minimum agaisnt a large nation like Russia and even more for China.
UK has not enough nukes to be fully credible vs China.
If UK dare to strike China first, they would loss at the end as China would recover much more easily than UK which would be crippled in a more extend and for more time.
It has been caculated that you need more than 300 nukes to get US damaged as Germany in WW2.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       2/19/2007 5:42:09 PM
Adamb you are quite ignorant of reality of nukes.Herald is right on this subject.
A atomic weapon size of Hiroshima is 15 kt max and has a radius of destruction of 2 km for heavy damage and 3 for light.So respectively 12 sqkm and 30 sqkm only.And even some people survived in heavy damage zones, some only at few hundred meters but in concrete building.You can say you would probably get a 100 000 killed for a hiroshima bomb if weather is good (bad weather reduce effect of thermal shock) and people not warned like in Hiroshima (unlikely).
If warned the number of dead could 10 time less.
Now surface of destruction of a nuke is proportional to E¨^(2/3) which means that a bomb 1000 time more powerfull do a 100 time more damage.A 300 kt nukes would do only 7,3 time more damage so 90 and 210 sqkm.
China has 1300 million  people and 470 million in 368,000 village!
Even you target the urban population of 800 milllion you would need more than 3000 Hiroshima to get only 260 million dead if not warned or maybe 30 milllion only  if warned.3000 Hiroshima = 400 * 300 kt bombs!
Even if you multiply by 10 this number of warheads you would not reach small willages and more Chinese would stay alive than the whole population of US and much more if warned.
And China would have its main infrastructure destroyed but with only peasant and the saved elite (even an hundred of thousands of engineers,  managers , doctors..), China would be rebuild in less than 100 years to a modern country.
People from Rand Corporation like Hermann Kahn, key strategist of the sixties, have calculated curves giving the necessary number of people to kill to achieve a signifacant victory:
If you kill 20 millions of US peoples, US are rebuild in less than 10 years and achive the same GDP before war
You would need to kill more than 200 millions , to have USA crippled to an 100 years to recover at the same GDP and power.
Germany has received the equivalent of 400 Hiroshima bombs in WW2 , was still fighting and was rebuild in less than 20 years.
It is why you need at least hundreds of nukes to get a credible MAD and to be able to use also nukes to strike military targets.I think that 350 is a minimum agaisnt a large nation like Russia and even more for China.
UK has not enough nukes to be fully credible vs China.
If UK dare to strike China first, they would loss at the end as China would recover much more easily than UK which would be crippled in a more extend and for more time.
It has been caculated that you need more than 300 nukes to get US damaged as Germany in WW2.
 
In fact it was the defense strategy of Mao: nukes plus some civilian protections plus a big low tech army and guerilla and a HUGE population would make China invulnerable to nuclear attack and let it survive.It is why communists pushed natality and China grow to 450 m to 1300 m in 60 years.ANd they had build a lot of bunker in cities  to save a large part of educated population.
Chinese army is nothing out of its border, but it is the best country to handle an total war including nuclear.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Dracae       10/17/2007 6:14:31 PM
When I read stuff like this , I am always verry surprised again.
 
Bigg discusions about nukes, and how manny it takes to take out China.
Reminds me of when I was in the USA and ppl said: they should have never gone to Irak, just trow a few a-bombs on Bagdad.
 
To me this is totaly irelevant, how manny nukes it would take.
 
1- When deploying them you have a verry bigg chance of some retaliation, leading to a lot of destruction in your own country.
2- Taking out China, for example, with 2000 nukes, like I read here, that manny nukes and a lot less also, would poisen our planet so much, that biljons of ppl would die, outside the targetcountry, and also in your own country.
Not fast, but slowely...
3-I know this to some ppl dousnt mather, but trowing nukes and aspecialy strategic ones wil kill masses off inocent (*) civilians.
 
(*) inocent:  In most, if not all so called bad or dangerous countries the ppl have almost nothing, or nothing to deside.
They have no choice in going to war or not.
In a way, in a democraty you can blame the ppl, but in a dictatorship you can't.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Xeno       4/23/2008 9:45:19 AM
"Italian artillery was always better than German."

Sure, since they use the PZH 2000 from Germany (;

Some said that Britain easily can beat Germany because of having carriers... an older German submarine was able to get under an US carrier without being detected. An their new submarine type 212a is nearly invisible under water.

This ranking makes sence. I think some military experts are better then any wannabe experts on this site.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics