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
Herald12345    Just a word of caution.   5/3/2009 9:49:36 AM
Those who rank France higher than the UK as of now as a world military force are NOT to be taken seriously as unbiased or even well informed.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/3/2009 12:09:49 PM
Seriously Herald, I know you like British, but I'm not misunformed or biased.
 
UK has no fully independant strategic forces or strategic planning capabilties, or any capability to project a minimum of air power without agreement of a local partner against a country with a raisonable number of air superiority fighters, and this until 2017 (time needeed for 2 carriers with a minimum number of F35).
 
UK has chosen a deep partnership with USA since Suez Crisis in 1956.
It can make sense, UK has given proofs like in 2003 to be a US reliable partner, but it not a fully independant capability.
If USA says no to Brtish, you don't go or we stop our relationship and BTW we stop to maintain your deterrent (i.e the Trident 2), there is a huge problem for UK.
UK stil retains some means to be able break relationship with USA (see the F35 drama) but it would be painfully.
 
See what top British officers  (no less than the former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals) says:
 
"We don't own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without having the clearance of the United States," he said.

The letter stated: "This force cannot be seen as independent of the United States in any meaningful sense. It relies on the United States for the provision and regular servicing of the D5 missiles.

"While this country has, in theory, freedom of action over giving the order to fire, it is unthinkable that, because of the catastrophic consequences for guilty and innocent alike, these weapons would ever be launched, or seriously threatened, without the backing and support of the United States."
 
The problem that those officers which are focused on conventional capabilities don"t see, is that a country without the backing of its national deterrent can be blackmailed like in 1956 by a nuclear power who would not appreciate military intervention of UK.
UK has chosen after 1056 a limited deterrent capability based on US help, but since depends of US support.
If they remove this US support , British are naked in front of independant nuclear powers and now there is several more nuclear power including non declared nuclear powers.
If they expect a nuclear protection in case of blackmail, they come back at the same point.
France has choosen to stay able to act independantly and we are very proud of it.
You are misunformed Herald.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/3/2009 12:10:08 PM
Seriously Herald, I know you like British, but I'm not misunformed or biased.
 
UK has no fully independant strategic forces or strategic planning capabilties, or any capability to project a minimum of air power without agreement of a local partner against a country with a raisonable number of air superiority fighters, and this until 2017 (time needeed for 2 carriers with a minimum number of F35).
 
UK has chosen a deep partnership with USA since Suez Crisis in 1956.
It can make sense, UK has given proofs like in 2003 to be a US reliable partner, but it not a fully independant capability.
If USA says no to Brtish, you don't go or we stop our relationship and BTW we stop to maintain your deterrent (i.e the Trident 2), there is a huge problem for UK.
UK stil retains some means to be able break relationship with USA (see the F35 drama) but it would be painfully.
 
See what top British officers  (no less than the former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals) says:
 
"We don't own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without having the clearance of the United States," he said.

The letter stated: "This force cannot be seen as independent of the United States in any meaningful sense. It relies on the United States for the provision and regular servicing of the D5 missiles.

"While this country has, in theory, freedom of action over giving the order to fire, it is unthinkable that, because of the catastrophic consequences for guilty and innocent alike, these weapons would ever be launched, or seriously threatened, without the backing and support of the United States."
 
The problem that those officers which are focused on conventional capabilities don"t see, is that a country without the backing of its national deterrent can be blackmailed like in 1956 by a nuclear power who would not appreciate military intervention of UK.
UK has chosen after 1956 a limited deterrent capability based on US help, but since depends of US support.
If they remove this US support , British are naked in front of independant nuclear powers and now there is several more nuclear power including non declared nuclear powers.
If they expect a nuclear protection in case of blackmail, they come back at the same point.
France has choosen to stay able to act independantly and we are very proud of it.
You are misunformed Herald.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/3/2009 12:33:03 PM
Not only France has capability to project overseas a force similar to UK, with the bonus of a real carrier with real air superiorty fighter while UK has not this capability until 2017, but we have a real capability agaisnt major powers thank to our deterrent.
It is why we spend 30 Billions euros  in the last 10 years to modernize our deterrent.
Equivalent of 10 aircraft carrier in price.
To insure that our subs are silent enough even versus an hunting from Russia or even USA (who would try to impeach use of our nukes against a country)
To insure that our second capability (airborne) can penetrate any defense (ASMP-A) and can be used in a massive counterforce strike against ennemi air force, land force, naval base and major warships.
 
Don't make any error.
If France decide to act against India or Pakistan, Iran or even North Korea, we can, even USA or Russia would not agree.
We can send 60 * 300 kts warheads on their air bases and naval bases,  or amy depots, while keeping our 3 active SLBM (in time of crisis) ready to deter an third party like a nuclear superpower.
India or Pakistan can not retaliate on us.
Then finish them on conventional forces while they would not have enough air power remaining agaisnt our single carrier.
UK can not implement those strategy since UK has no potent tactical warheads, no conventional carrier and depends on US approval for its deterrent.
Of course using nuclear power from France needs a strong reason.A very important reason.
But make no mistake, we can use it.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/3/2009 12:44:55 PM
Russia may have much more nukes than us, but they are completely unable to project a small decent fighting force in Africa, Indian ocean or south America.They can act only in vicinity of their borders like in Georgia.
And their second strike deterrent is not better than us since their SLBM subs are quite noisy (when they have a decent number to be operationnal).On second strike deterrent their Topol land based mobile missiles force, is probably their most capable force.
Same for Chinese which have even less nukes than France.
And if we are not ready to use our nukes, we would ramp up for full conventional war like USA in 1941 behind our nuclear shield.
We have design for all kind of weapons used in a conventional conflict and GDP, and financial reserve and manpower for that.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/3/2009 1:19:24 PM
Read
We can send 60 * 300 kts (ASMP) warheads on their air bases and naval bases,  or amy depots, while keeping our 3 active SLBM SSBN (in time of crisis) ready to deter an third party like a nuclear superpower.
A single of our SSBN can wipe out 96 high value military or industrial targets and we still have two to prevent retaliation on Paris and our civilians.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You are ill informed and not objective.   5/6/2009 1:23:33 PM

Seriously Herald, I know you like British, but I'm not misinformed or biased.

 Yes you are. If it isn't French, then its no good. Its that simple. The fact that someone may have something factually negative to say about THALES, the Rafale, the MICA, ASTER, rather well;l known French procurement disasters,  the general inferiority of French avionics, and the demonstrated fan boy virulence as I analyze it of  "defenders of French honor" in the face of technical fact drives you nuts.
 
UK has no fully independent strategic forces or strategic planning capabilities, or any capability to project a minimum of air power without agreement of a local partner against a country with a reasonable number of air superiority fighters, and this until 2017 (time needed for 2 carriers with a minimum number of F35).

When a nation can launch on command, it is independent. You argue that since Britain uses D-5 missiles that it is hamstrung by us? That is as stupid as saying that the British are hamstrung by France because they use ASTER as their Type 45 primary air defense missile.  The F-35 is a bomb truck with a very formidable A2A capability. The VTOL version is very British driven, so who is handcuffed to whom? Maybe the USMC to the RN?  As you can see, even by Cartesian logic you fail.  

UK has chosen a deep partnership with USA since Suez Crisis in 1956.

It can make sense, UK has given proofs like in 2003 to be a US reliable partner, but it not a fully independant capability.
 
Falklands. That is called negation

If USA says no to Brtish, you don't go or we stop our relationship and BTW we stop to maintain your deterrent (i.e the Trident 2), there is a huge problem for UK.
 
Britain buys or builds a different solution. AUSTRALIA, for example, is doing some interesting things with scramdarts.

UK stil retains some means to be able break relationship with USA (see the F35 drama) but it would be painfully.

Why does Britain (BAE buying up everything defense not nailed down) want to do that again?

See what top British officers  (no less than the former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals) says:


"We don't own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without having the clearance of the United States," he said.
 
The letter stated: "This force cannot be seen as independent of the United States in any meaningful sense. It relies on the United States for the provision and regular servicing of the D5 missiles.
 
"While this country has, in theory, freedom of action over giving the order to fire, it is unthinkable that, because of the catastrophic consequences for guilty and innocent alike, these weapons would ever be launched, or seriously threatened, without the backing and support of the United States."

That is a political decision. You could be very well ignorant of with how much a jaundiced eye ANYONE SANE in the French government regards a WMD missile launch under the same exact POLITICAL terms. Like that British ARMY general, you confuse political with technical means. The Pakistanis for example have Americans running around inside their country trying to make sure that WE sit on their nuclear weapons, but as you can read in La Monde or AFP, there is no TECHNICAL way  even with us pointing a gun at Gillani's head like we did at Musharif  that we can guarantee no use as conditions actually exist inside Pakistan.    

The problem that those officers which are focused on conventional capabilities don"t see, is that a country without the backing of its national deterrent can be blackmailed like in 1956 by a nuclear power who would not appreciate military intervention of UK.
 
Once again
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    No offense meant   3/29/2010 8:27:06 AM

Not only France has capability to project overseas a force similar to UK, with the bonus of a real carrier with real air superiorty fighter while UK has not this capability until 2017, but we have a real capability agaisnt major powers thank to our deterrent.

It is why we spend 30 Billions euros  in the last 10 years to modernize our deterrent.

Equivalent of 10 aircraft carrier in price.

To insure that our subs are silent enough even versus an hunting from Russia or even USA (who would try to impeach use of our nukes against a country)

To insure that our second capability (airborne) can penetrate any defense (ASMP-A) and can be used in a massive counterforce strike against ennemi air force, land force, naval base and major warships.

 

Don't make any error.

If France decide to act against India or Pakistan, Iran or even North Korea, we can, even USA or Russia would not agree.

We can send 60 * 300 kts warheads on their air bases and naval bases,  or amy depots, while keeping our 3 active SLBM (in time of crisis) ready to deter an third party like a nuclear superpower.

India or Pakistan can not retaliate on us.

Then finish them on conventional forces while they would not have enough air power remaining agaisnt our single carrier.

UK can not implement those strategy since UK has no potent tactical warheads, no conventional carrier and depends on US approval for its deterrent.

Of course using nuclear power from France needs a strong reason.A very important reason.

But make no mistake, we can use it.

 

 

 

 


But your facts here are wrong, Britian has a far greater power projection capability the France, and or any other NATO/EU nation (in terms of NATO only second to the US). France lacks in military power compared to Britain, although it is still able to maintain a well equipped independent force. Britain maintains an advanced nuclear deterennt, and the 2nd largest navy and air force in NATO which provides the capability to deliver such a deterrent when needed, i would not be so quick to dissmiss the UK in terms of military power, i think i can detect some old Anglo French vivalry here (cough cough Waterloo and many more http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />), i would also like to thank Herald for standing up for the United Kingdom, and bringing some well needed balance to the debate.
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    Foolish list really   3/29/2010 12:49:42 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
that list is based on none of the above specified points other than manpower in most cases, USA agreed everywhere below is utterly wrong and alot of people seem to agree with me, India should be way way down the list and lets face it, it is only there by the skin of its teeth, italy can just be removed altogether, where is japan in all this? dont the deserve a mention because i sure as hell would, pakistan im dubious about seems to again be based on manpower, because at the moment they just seem to be a larger maringally better armed version of the Afghan national army, but less well trained, power should mostly be summed up with the ability to project said power and the effect it has (thats in my opinion), in this case a more accurate list should go somewhere along the lines of
1.USA
2.Great Britain and Northern Ireland
3.France
4.Russia
5.Israel
6.China
7.Germany
8.Canada (its deserves to be added, i dont see China racking up any military experience in Afghanistan)
9.Japan
10.India (just barely, to be quite honest i highly doubt they could effectively throw around any military power, in my personal opinion, no offence intended, if India fought a European or any Western army the Indian troops would be merely target practice, not literally of course im sure they would put up some sort of a fight but im dubious about them, if i have missed something and that India is suddenly the worlds military super power please someone elighten me.)
im aware this may not be entirely accurate but its what i think. i have reasonable belief that it is accurate to a good degree but really we will never no, not unless we take them all and stick them together in a big feild until they fight it out, which it hopefully never likely to happen.
 
Quote    Reply

xxxMOE FERRARIxxx    THE TRUE NON BIOUS LIST   4/1/2010 2:24:47 PM
HERE IS THE 'TRUE' list: 

1) USA
2) CHINA
3) RUSSIA
4) INDIA
5) IRAN
6) UK
7) PAKISTAN
8) TURKEY
9) NORTH KOREA
10) INDONESIA

Too bad for the European nations their former colonies are overtaking them in industry aswell as in military 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics