Which would be the 5 most powerful militaries in the world?

[K1052]

IMO if we went back into Korea we would get our asses handed to us.

The only reason N.K. exisits today is because of the large number of troops China used in its intervention. China and N.K. also suffered huge losses in comparison to the U.N. forces.

Things have changed a little since the early 1950s. Providing that we struck first (unlikely) and had lots of time to prepare, N.K would be no more.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: K1052

IMO if we went back into Korea we would get our asses handed to us.

The only reason N.K. exisits today is because of the large number of troops China used in its intervention. China and N.K. also suffered huge losses in comparison to the U.N. forces.

Things have changed a little since the early 1950s. Providing that we struck first (unlikely) and had lots of time to prepare, N.K would be no more.

Didn't the russian's also join in the fun in N.K?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: K1052

IMO if we went back into Korea we would get our asses handed to us.

The only reason N.K. exisits today is because of the large number of troops China used in its intervention. China and N.K. also suffered huge losses in comparison to the U.N. forces.

Things have changed a little since the early 1950s. Providing that we struck first (unlikely) and had lots of time to prepare, N.K would be no more.

Didn't the russian's also join in the fun in N.K?

They didn't send troops to directly fight us like the ChiComs did.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Didn't the russian's also join in the fun in N.K?

Not "officially", but a lot of the Mig pilots flying over N.K. spoke Russkie pretty well for Koreans...

 

[FacelessNobody]

1. USA for reasons mentioned here several times. We're number 1 .
2. China. Up and coming, will probably surpass the USA in time, but even now quite good.
3. France. Having studied French history, I think France would be very dangerous because of the precedent set by de Gaulle. He won his generals back over by saying "instead of a colonial mission, you have a nuclear one" and France advanced it's nuclear program considerably and continues to today. EU's most powerful military, but not by much at all.
4. UK. As modern as France and almost as modern as the US, but the UK is more willing to use its military than France is.
5. Russia. Obviously would've been #2 but 15 years ago, still effective but on the way down.

 

[Vonkhan]

NOT taking nukes into account

1. US (will pwn Russia in every theatre)
2. Russia (better air force, better training, navy is still very capable - incapable of actual invasion of US, outmatched in resources)
3. China (overwhelm India by sheer numbers - dont have the logistics to venture in Russia)
4. India (sheer numbers backed by a small but powerful "edge" of hi-end equipment - lacks long-range capabilities to attack Chinese mainland)
5. UK/France (Cutting edge tech + highly trained military - lack of numbers)

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: chuckieland
my take on overall

1.USA (no question about it)
2.Russia (don't count them up yet)
3.China (uprising, mass of outdate equipment to retire and replace with new ones)
4.UK
5.N.K (large well train army, skill wise)

I don't consider following powerful
french (it doesn't matter, french army surrander fast in WW1, WW2. and lost to vietment military)
Iran (8 year war with iraq, ended in tie, so we should expect same result when usa invade)
India (likes to invade other country, but hardly win any war. fought a tie with parkistan, lost to china in 1950's when india going for capture tabit)

India likes to mind its business for the most part and (mostly) do good by its citizens. It's called 'democracy' but I believe the term is unfamiliar in China, so I'll let that slide. India has won 3 wars against Pakistan (1947, 1971 and 1999 - Kargil), apparently stalemated one (1965), lost a war to China (in 1962 - nothing to do with Tibet or 1950s - when China took advantage of the Cuban Missile crisis to needle India) and had a mini-Vietnam of its own in Sri Lanka in the late 80s. China was the expansionist nation (invaded Tibet and still claims Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state). But China-India ties are better these days (no thanks to half-wits like you who can neither spell nor get facts right) and the likelihood of war is considered extremely low.

As far as military goes, the Indian navy is far superior to the Chinese navy as of date. Though in an out and out war with no one else interfering, I believe India is probably still not capable of an outright victory over China. But it wouldn't be a loss of 1962 magnitude either.

India's loss to CHina back then was a real eye-opener. It was pretty much an embarrasment to our nation.

Someone mentioned India wouldn't fare well if it fought outside its turf. It's true...but India would never ever fight outside its turf. They'd only fight to defend themselves. But they do send people out for peacekeeping.

 

[Vonkhan]

The Chinese army would probably score a bloody, hard fought victory over the Indian army

The Chinese AF and the Indian AF would probably be locked in a stalemate. (If u search the 'net u can read about the sad story reg. the Chinese Sukhois)

The Chinese navy would be b*tch-slapped by the Indian navy

 

[AndrewR]

Some points for consideration by people who keep mentioning the size of a military. Hasn't it occurred to you that the US military has demonstrated that size is not essential for modern combat? Back in the Korean War when China sent 600,000 troops over the Yalu against tremendously smaller UN forces, the advantage of mass human waves was obvious. Automatic weapons were scarce, artillery was sparse, and airpower was significantly limited by weather and bombload. Now, the same sort of attack against the modern US military would meet every infantryman with an automatic weapon, more accurate and more lethal artillery, and airpower that can devastate large formations (reference Afghanistan) in seconds. Plus, the Chinese took advantage of the night to launch attacks, but the US owns the night now. Ask the Iraqis since they prefer to attack in daylight because they are too obvious at night to our sensors.

So tell me again why having millions in your ground forces matters?

As for Russia, they are too busy cornholing the conscripts to get any real training done. The only advantages they have in Chechnya are airpower and artillery so they level everything in sight and hope that they kill the right people.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: Spencer278
12. India - $12.8 billion

Why do people keep saying india is in the top 5 when their speeding is 12th?

1)US
2)EU (I don't think U.K. alone will make the list)
3)France
4)China/Russia
5)India



military budgets alone aren't necessarily the best indicator. India, for example is able to broker a number of "good deals" that other countries don't pay attention to. They recently got a Russian carrier for "free." Most of their training jets are cheap, archaic Mig-21s (human life is "more" expendable there). They have gotten a number of technologies from france and russia to build their own indigenous fighter craft now -- and labor is damn cheap there. Lets just say they get a lot "more" than the U.S. dollar for dollar. They may not have the best equipment - but it gets the job done.Putting Pakistan on the map is a joke. India fought 3 wars with them, and humiliated them each time. In one war, even 90,000 plus Pakistani troops surrendered.

Two Wars India fought with China were disasterous for the Indians. Of course if I recall correctly it had more to do with poor leadership on the Indian side than the Chinese being better fighters. Of course that can be construed as the Chinese being better prepared, at least regarding their Generals.

What was the second war that they fought?

Was it only one? I thought they tangled twice.

I thought they fought in the early 60's around the time when Kennedy was in office. Everything on Google only mentions that war. Maybe there was another smaller conflict like that Kargill (not sure how to spell it) incident?

Only one war took place between India and China, in 1962 - refer the link I posted earlier...

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother

Originally posted by: Shlong

Originally posted by: idNut
You know what I just realized? We need some aliens to fight that way we can point all those weapons and inner agression against another species instead of blowing ourselves up. I think that would unite some brotherhood amongst humanity don't you think?

That's what Ronald Reagan Said.

then we can let the USA fend off the outworldish invaders, the way they think everything is always their business. while the rest of the world kicks back and enjoys the show. .

Then just before you cap the last one he says 'We come in peace, Moron'

 

[So]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother

Originally posted by: Shlong

Originally posted by: idNut
You know what I just realized? We need some aliens to fight that way we can point all those weapons and inner agression against another species instead of blowing ourselves up. I think that would unite some brotherhood amongst humanity don't you think?

That's what Ronald Reagan Said.

then we can let the USA fend off the outworldish invaders, the way they think everything is always their business. while the rest of the world kicks back and enjoys the show. .

Then just before you cap the last one he says 'We come in peace, Moron'

And the american badass cowboy wearing the hat and wielding an m-16 quips:

"You come in pieces boy!"

 

[So]

Originally posted by: thatsright

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: thatsright

1. Soviet Red Army in WW2
2. Roman Empire Army
3. US Military in WW2
4. British Army/Navy in the 1700's & 1800's
5. The Vietcong/NVA during the Vietnam war 1946-1975. (Hey they kicked our ass & the French)

Wasn't sure if you meant currently or all time?

What the heck did the VietCong acheive that was so amazing? How well would they have performed had the war taken place in the American Mid-west?

Perhaps, you miss the irony in your post - the American Militia kicking your #4 greatest military in the 1700s

To give a bit more reasoning behind two of my choices, here goes. The Vietcong wore down two major military powers and ended up forcing them to leave Indo-China. Yes they didn't have the same caliber of US equipment, but thats not the point. And of course if they were fighting in the US mid-west, of course they would be wiped out. I just put them in my list because of what they were able to overcome in the end.

As for the British military of the 1700's & 1800's, yes we did beat them in the American revolution but this was just one loss for them. I'm really referring to their US navy in Europe and around the world that was so dominant. Taken as a whole, the British military of that time was very powerful, even including loosing to the American colonist. And I meant the USA military of World War 2, not of the same period as the British Military of the 17th & 18th centuries.

Just my $0.03

And you are seriously neglecting the german army:

Nearly won a two front LAND war. Twice in thirty years. Took 10:1 odds in russia against a foe with superior tanks and came within sight of the kremlin. This wasn't the brits versus the Boers, and this wasn't all countryside. There was some heavy street fighting.

Plus, the only army to garner a russian surrender (WWI) in god knows how long.

Took and held all of continental europe against the WHOLE WORLD for nearly six years.

They may have been evil, but they were incredibly skilled.

 

[Whitecloak]

US
Russia
China
India
Israel

 

[josphII]

1.US
2. - open -
3. - open -
4. - open -
5. - open -
6. - open -
7.UK
8.France
9.Russia
10.China

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: Spencer278
12. India - $12.8 billion

Why do people keep saying india is in the top 5 when their speeding is 12th?

1)US
2)EU (I don't think U.K. alone will make the list)
3)France
4)China/Russia
5)India



military budgets alone aren't necessarily the best indicator. India, for example is able to broker a number of "good deals" that other countries don't pay attention to. They recently got a Russian carrier for "free." Most of their training jets are cheap, archaic Mig-21s (human life is "more" expendable there). They have gotten a number of technologies from france and russia to build their own indigenous fighter craft now -- and labor is damn cheap there. Lets just say they get a lot "more" than the U.S. dollar for dollar. They may not have the best equipment - but it gets the job done.Putting Pakistan on the map is a joke. India fought 3 wars with them, and humiliated them each time. In one war, even 90,000 plus Pakistani troops surrendered.

Two Wars India fought with China were disasterous for the Indians. Of course if I recall correctly it had more to do with poor leadership on the Indian side than the Chinese being better fighters. Of course that can be construed as the Chinese being better prepared, at least regarding their Generals.

the reason that the war was disastarous was because the Chinese blatantly lied. they said they would not engage in war, then attacked from behind the back. second reason is that they were much better acclimated to the terrain, it was fought at very high elevations, and the Chinese had setup a larger/better position on the top of the mountains. i think the chinese have a stronger military still, but had they not been deceitful (india had pulled its troops away thinking no war was eminent), and had they not commanded the advantageous position, it wouldn't have been much closer.

 

[littlezipp]

Did the research for you so enjoy:

For total number of armed personnel: (in millions)
1. China 2.81
2. Russia 1.52
3. US 1.366
4. India 1.303
5. South Korea .683
6. Pakistan .612
7. Turkey .610
8. Iran .513
9. Vietnam .484
10. Egypt .448

Weapons Holdings: (in millions)
1. US 38.538
2. China 34.281
3. N. Korea 17.634
4. Israel 15.985
5. Syria 11.905
6. Egypt 11.251
7. India 10.538
8. S. Korea 10.303
9. Turkey 10.049
10. Ukraine 9.52

Air Force Personnel:
1. US 370,000
2. India 110,000
3. N. Korea 85,000
4. France 78,100
5. Germany 76,200

My Top 4 in no particular order:
US, China, Russia and India

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: littlezipp
Did the research for you so enjoy:

For total number of armed personnel: (in millions)
1. China 2.81
2. Russia 1.52
3. US 1.366
4. India 1.303
5. South Korea .683
6. Pakistan .612
7. Turkey .610
8. Iran .513
9. Vietnam .484
10. Egypt .448

Weapons Holdings: (in millions)
1. US 38.538
2. China 34.281
3. N. Korea 17.634
4. Israel 15.985
5. Syria 11.905
6. Egypt 11.251
7. India 10.538
8. S. Korea 10.303
9. Turkey 10.049
10. Ukraine 9.52

Air Force Personnel:
1. US 370,000
2. India 110,000
3. N. Korea 85,000
4. France 78,100
5. Germany 76,200

My Top 4 in no particular order:
US, China, Russia and India

Great job. Sources??

 

[littlezipp]

Sources
International Relations students best friends:
CIA World Factbook, Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC), US Department of Energy and Energy Information Administration.

By the way, the question about who the most powerful militaries in the world are is a tough one. I have professors who don't believe that they are qualified to answer such questions. A militaries strength lie not only in technology, but also in leadership/command structure.

Also, there is also no such thing as an EU army. The closest thing would be NATO. The EU is currently working on creating a CFSP (common foreign and security policy), but it is years off and plagued with problems. The main problems revolve around size, capabilities and objectives. France and Britain, as usual cannot agree on solutions.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: littlezipp
Sources
International Relations students best friends:
CIA World Factbook, Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC), US Department of Energy and Energy Information Administration.

By the way, the question about who the most powerful militaries in the world are is a tough one. I have professors who don't believe that they are qualified to answer such questions. A militaries strength lie not only in technology, but also in leadership/command structure.

Also, there is also no such thing as an EU army. The closest thing would be NATO. The EU is currently working on creating a CFSP (common foreign and security policy), but it is years off and plagued with problems. The main problems revolve around size, capabilities and objectives. France and Britain, as usual cannot agree on solutions.

I know that the EU is no single military entity. Quite frankly, i think there are a lot of countries that would annihilate the U.K. in a war, i don't know how ppl would mention that, or n. korea. of course though, that PROBABLY wouldn't happen because the U.K. has been playing good little b*tch to us, I'm sure we got their back.

i agree with you that numbers alone do not determine a military's power. I am surprised to see China isn't even on the map in terms of airpower.

 

[Fenixgoon]

basically, anyone with a nuke should be in the top 5 because it wouldnt take to many to completely destroy the earth, let alone part of it. of course, the united states is on top *damn straight!*

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
basically, anyone with a nuke should be in the top 5 because it wouldnt take to many to completely destroy the earth, let alone part of it. of course, the united states is on top *damn straight!*

its not about destroying the earth. i dont' think anyone with nukes plans on shooting the nukes straight up or down. the question is now can they DELIVER them? most countries that have them like india and pakistan have very limited ranges. china has a little better range. But the reason we are Number 1 (i'm not a military expert, this just seems right though) is because we have the best reach. we have jets and weapons all around the world from turkey, to pakistan, to guam, to wherever. our strike times will be substantially less than say Chinas. can you imagine China trying to attack us when they have to fly 10k miles or whatever and we have bases right there in Pakistan? we can be in China airspace in 20 minutes.

edit: and nukes are not a great example either because, i hope, no nation plans to engage in a full blown nuclear war. Conventional weapons are still the main ways of fighting, and the better conventional weapons, with a decent nuclear stockpile and good delivery systems is what is most important in my opinion.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: thatsright

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: thatsright

1. Soviet Red Army in WW2
2. Roman Empire Army
3. US Military in WW2
4. British Army/Navy in the 1700's & 1800's
5. The Vietcong/NVA during the Vietnam war 1946-1975. (Hey they kicked our ass & the French)

Wasn't sure if you meant currently or all time?

What the heck did the VietCong acheive that was so amazing? How well would they have performed had the war taken place in the American Mid-west?

Perhaps, you miss the irony in your post - the American Militia kicking your #4 greatest military in the 1700s

To give a bit more reasoning behind two of my choices, here goes. The Vietcong wore down two major military powers and ended up forcing them to leave Indo-China. Yes they didn't have the same caliber of US equipment, but thats not the point. And of course if they were fighting in the US mid-west, of course they would be wiped out. I just put them in my list because of what they were able to overcome in the end.

As for the British military of the 1700's & 1800's, yes we did beat them in the American revolution but this was just one loss for them. I'm really referring to their US navy in Europe and around the world that was so dominant. Taken as a whole, the British military of that time was very powerful, even including loosing to the American colonist. And I meant the USA military of World War 2, not of the same period as the British Military of the 17th & 18th centuries.

Just my $0.03

And you are seriously neglecting the german army:

Nearly won a two front LAND war. Twice in thirty years. Took 10:1 odds in russia against a foe with superior tanks and came within sight of the kremlin. This wasn't the brits versus the Boers, and this wasn't all countryside. There was some heavy street fighting.

Plus, the only army to garner a russian surrender (WWI) in god knows how long.

Took and held all of continental europe against the WHOLE WORLD for nearly six years.

They may have been evil, but they were incredibly skilled.

I'd like to post my top 5 armies in history:

1. Mongolian Horde- Built an empire bigger than the Romans and brought down so many kingdoms.
2. Roman Army- Survived and later beat up a more powerful neighbor (Carthage) and then lasted so long.
3. US WW2- Biggest 2 front war in history, took down Japan and with help Germany. Thats incredible logistics to overcome to resupply, and brilliant leadership.
4. British Army/Navy in the 1700's & 1800's- i'm not sure, but is that the biggest empire? Went around the world, the Sun never set on them.
5. Alexander the Great and his army- I'm not sure if the army was that great, but having Alexander definitely puts it up here. Smashed through Persia and went to India.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: thatsright

Originally posted by: athithi

Originally posted by: thatsright

1. Soviet Red Army in WW2
2. Roman Empire Army
3. US Military in WW2
4. British Army/Navy in the 1700's & 1800's
5. The Vietcong/NVA during the Vietnam war 1946-1975. (Hey they kicked our ass & the French)

Wasn't sure if you meant currently or all time?

What the heck did the VietCong acheive that was so amazing? How well would they have performed had the war taken place in the American Mid-west?

Perhaps, you miss the irony in your post - the American Militia kicking your #4 greatest military in the 1700s

To give a bit more reasoning behind two of my choices, here goes. The Vietcong wore down two major military powers and ended up forcing them to leave Indo-China. Yes they didn't have the same caliber of US equipment, but thats not the point. And of course if they were fighting in the US mid-west, of course they would be wiped out. I just put them in my list because of what they were able to overcome in the end.

As for the British military of the 1700's & 1800's, yes we did beat them in the American revolution but this was just one loss for them. I'm really referring to their US navy in Europe and around the world that was so dominant. Taken as a whole, the British military of that time was very powerful, even including loosing to the American colonist. And I meant the USA military of World War 2, not of the same period as the British Military of the 17th & 18th centuries.

Just my $0.03

And you are seriously neglecting the german army:

Nearly won a two front LAND war. Twice in thirty years. Took 10:1 odds in russia against a foe with superior tanks and came within sight of the kremlin. This wasn't the brits versus the Boers, and this wasn't all countryside. There was some heavy street fighting.

Plus, the only army to garner a russian surrender (WWI) in god knows how long.

Took and held all of continental europe against the WHOLE WORLD for nearly six years.

They may have been evil, but they were incredibly skilled.

I'd like to post my top 5 armies in history:

1. Mongolian Horde- Built an empire bigger than the Romans and brought down so many kingdoms.
2. Roman Army- Survived and later beat up a more powerful neighbor (Carthage) and then lasted so long.
3. US WW2- Biggest 2 front war in history, took down Japan and with help Germany. Thats incredible logistics to overcome to resupply, and brilliant leadership.
4. British Army/Navy in the 1700's & 1800's- i'm not sure, but is that the biggest empire? Went around the world, the Sun never set on them.
5. Alexander the Great and his army- I'm not sure if the army was that great, but having Alexander definitely puts it up here. Smashed through Persia and went to India.

Alexander, or was we call him, "Sikander" was no doubt a great leader. He beat us (Punjabis) but that was his last fight . His army was mostly made up of mercenaries and people he picked up along the way as he conqured new territories. to command such a diverse military is noteworthy. on an interesting note, parts of nw india and pakistan were Greek speaking territories at one time.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
basically, anyone with a nuke should be in the top 5 because it wouldnt take to many to completely destroy the earth, let alone part of it. of course, the united states is on top *damn straight!*

its not about destroying the earth. i dont' think anyone with nukes plans on shooting the nukes straight up or down. the question is now can they DELIVER them? most countries that have them like india and pakistan have very limited ranges. china has a little better range. But the reason we are Number 1 (i'm not a military expert, this just seems right though) is because we have the best reach. we have jets and weapons all around the world from turkey, to pakistan, to guam, to wherever. our strike times will be substantially less than say Chinas. can you imagine China trying to attack us when they have to fly 10k miles or whatever and we have bases right there in Pakistan? we can be in China airspace in 20 minutes.

edit: and nukes are not a great example either because, i hope, no nation plans to engage in a full blown nuclear war. Conventional weapons are still the main ways of fighting, and the better conventional weapons, with a decent nuclear stockpile and good delivery systems is what is most important in my opinion.

Both china and india most likely have ICBM. If a country can launch a item into space then they can make it fall back down on who ever with a little more effort.