Originally posted by: bernse
Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
Luxemburg is more powerful than France. As is Panama, Costa Rica, Nieu and Vatican City.
Your on drugs. I hope you were kidding.
Only three of the countries people have listed have active militaries. United States, United Kingdom, and Israel.
Originally posted by: Regs
India has a bunch of disloyal chicken shites commanders, which I guess is ok considering thats the type of military they fight against.
Originally posted by: Regs
What? Canada sends peace keeps all over the place, they could likely take over the world right?
India has a bunch of disloyal chicken shites commanders, which I guess is ok considering thats the type of military they fight against.
They do not even come close to the same level of standards of the USA or UK.
Just because they rebel against a country or put on a air show of new fighter craft does not make their military strong. USA is the only super power in the world, end of story. UK comes in distant second, so you can only imagine what the other countries have to offer.
Iraq had the 3rd largest army when we fought them in the Gulf War. An army that could make India shake in their boots. We took 300,000 Pows at the end of that war.
I don't have to prove much since everything is relative to the facts all ready given. Active means more than just invading some piss poor 3 world nation. Active as in you need a 4 year college degree to become a ranking officer, or extensive amount of experience and combat training to become a field commander.
I don't have to prove much since everything is relative to the facts all ready given.
originally posted by: xboxist
Oh come on! Everybody that plays Age of Empires II knows that the top five is something like this:
1. Teutons
2. Spain
3. Turkey
4. Mongols
5. Persia
(actually I don't know the top 5. I just know that Teutonic Knights and the Spanish 2x firing rate upgrade were insane.)
Stop talking out of your ass put up some proof to support your claims. US Army does not require 4 year degree for enlisted men may be for officers.
Title 10 USC, Section 12205, states that no person may be appointed to a grade above first lieutenant in the Army Reserve, or be federally recognized in a grade above first lieutenant as a member of the Army National Guard unless he was awarded a baccalaureate degree from a qualifying educational institution. A qualifying institution is an educational institution that is accredited. This statutory provision applies to active duty Other Than Regular Army (OTRA) officers. It does not apply to officers appointed to the grade of captain before 1 Oct 95, nor does it apply to an officer appointed in, or assigned for service in a health profession for which a baccalaureate degree is not a condition of original appointment or assignment.
In accordance with section 512 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY02, the Secretary of the Army may, on a case-by-case basis, waive the baccalaureate degree requirement of 10 USC 12205(a) for any officer who was commissioned through the Army Officer Candidate School. The waiver may be in effect for no more than 2 years after the waiver is granted. Upon completion of the baccalaureate degree, officers must provide documented proof to their branch assignment officer. Documented proof of a baccalaureate degree must be an official transcript. Officers who have not earned a baccalaureate degree at the end of the period in which the waiver was granted are subject to discharge from active duty. The new waiver authority has no expiration date and is now codified as 10 USC 12205(d).
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Stop talking out of your ass put up some proof to support your claims. US Army does not require 4 year degree for enlisted men may be for officers.
Title 10 USC, Section 12205, states that no person may be appointed to a grade above first lieutenant in the Army Reserve, or be federally recognized in a grade above first lieutenant as a member of the Army National Guard unless he was awarded a baccalaureate degree from a qualifying educational institution. A qualifying institution is an educational institution that is accredited. This statutory provision applies to active duty Other Than Regular Army (OTRA) officers. It does not apply to officers appointed to the grade of captain before 1 Oct 95, nor does it apply to an officer appointed in, or assigned for service in a health profession for which a baccalaureate degree is not a condition of original appointment or assignment.
In accordance with section 512 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY02, the Secretary of the Army may, on a case-by-case basis, waive the baccalaureate degree requirement of 10 USC 12205(a) for any officer who was commissioned through the Army Officer Candidate School. The waiver may be in effect for no more than 2 years after the waiver is granted. Upon completion of the baccalaureate degree, officers must provide documented proof to their branch assignment officer. Documented proof of a baccalaureate degree must be an official transcript. Officers who have not earned a baccalaureate degree at the end of the period in which the waiver was granted are subject to discharge from active duty. The new waiver authority has no expiration date and is now codified as 10 USC 12205(d).
Link.
Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Stop talking out of your ass put up some proof to support your claims. US Army does not require 4 year degree for enlisted men may be for officers.
Title 10 USC, Section 12205, states that no person may be appointed to a grade above first lieutenant in the Army Reserve, or be federally recognized in a grade above first lieutenant as a member of the Army National Guard unless he was awarded a baccalaureate degree from a qualifying educational institution. A qualifying institution is an educational institution that is accredited. This statutory provision applies to active duty Other Than Regular Army (OTRA) officers. It does not apply to officers appointed to the grade of captain before 1 Oct 95, nor does it apply to an officer appointed in, or assigned for service in a health profession for which a baccalaureate degree is not a condition of original appointment or assignment.
In accordance with section 512 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY02, the Secretary of the Army may, on a case-by-case basis, waive the baccalaureate degree requirement of 10 USC 12205(a) for any officer who was commissioned through the Army Officer Candidate School. The waiver may be in effect for no more than 2 years after the waiver is granted. Upon completion of the baccalaureate degree, officers must provide documented proof to their branch assignment officer. Documented proof of a baccalaureate degree must be an official transcript. Officers who have not earned a baccalaureate degree at the end of the period in which the waiver was granted are subject to discharge from active duty. The new waiver authority has no expiration date and is now codified as 10 USC 12205(d).
Link.
India has a bunch of disloyal chicken shites commanders, which I guess is ok considering thats the type of military they fight against.
Originally posted by: athithi
What? Canada sends peace keeps all over the place, they could likely take over the world right?
If the ability to take over the world is what qualifies a military as the greatest, neither is the US capable of it.
India has a bunch of disloyal chicken shites commanders, which I guess is ok considering thats the type of military they fight against.
Disloyal? How? Where? When? Proof? Dumbass?
Thanks for the vote of confidence. India is surrounded by the following countries (not an exclusive list):
China - self explanatory
Pakistan - military dictatorship, jihadis, mafia
Bangladesh - refugee situation
Burma - military junta
Sri Lanka - LTTE
Wester border - Pakistan
North/NE - China
East - Bangladesh
South - Sri Lanka
The Indian Army wages a daily battle to keep our borders secure.
America, OTOH, is bordered by Mexico and Canada. Perhaps that's why you need to go half-way around the world to pick up a good fight.
You mother-fvcking son of a bitch, don't insult the soldiers of my country.
They do not even come close to the same level of standards of the USA or UK.
In specific areas where more money means more training and better equipment, sure. It is not for any lack of ability or initiative. India has just been poorer and less developed. Time.
Just because they rebel against a country or put on a air show of new fighter craft does not make their military strong. USA is the only super power in the world, end of story. UK comes in distant second, so you can only imagine what the other countries have to offer.
The military is strong - not stupid. Strength lies not only in aggression but also in the ability to defend yourself and maintain the territorial integrity of your nation. For the neighbourhood we live in, I believe we are doing quite well, thank you.
Iraq had the 3rd largest army when we fought them in the Gulf War. An army that could make India shake in their boots. We took 300,000 Pows at the end of that war.
No, the Indian Army would defeat the Iraqi Army of 1991, though not quite as comprehensively.
I don't have to prove much since everything is relative to the facts all ready given. Active means more than just invading some piss poor 3 world nation. Active as in you need a 4 year college degree to become a ranking officer, or extensive amount of experience and combat training to become a field commander.
You don't have to prove much because you are a fvcking retard. Less is expected of you intellectually than of a sperm making its way to an egg.
Originally posted by: brigden
1. United States of America
The US military is undoubtedly the most useful military institution. It is expansive, dominant, precise, powerful, and capable of projecting power globally, on multiple fronts. It is incredibly effective at compelling foreign polities to be more friendly and useful to the United States, and protects the American economy through global stability, and stability within key extraterritorial regions. Not only that, but it allows America to vanquish its adversaries without major casualties, enabling military intervention in extraterritorial, "detached," conflicts (Republicanism and Democracy are intrinsically opposed to the use of military force). Essentially, America can eliminate whoever it wants to, wherever it wants to, and without perilous attrition. The United States military is an institution that is instrumental in executing American interests.
2. Israel
The Israeli military is also a very beneficial institution. In fact, it is the single most beneficial Israeli institution, and the one organization that enables Israel to exist. It has proven itself, through multiple wars against superior opponents, to be among the most effective and efficient militaries. Its success and capabilities have resulted in formal recognition of Israel throughout the Arab world, and deter Arab aggression and invasion. Israel's military continues to provide an extensive array of services that (both actively and passively) it uses to advance its national interests - it's military is much more effective in this regard than any other country (except, perhaps, for America).
3. China
Although I list China here, it is more of a future tool than a current one. However, due to its ongoing reformation, and the extremely pragmatic goals it aims to achieve, it will probably become one of the most effective guardians of any nation's strategic interests. China is aiming to amass enough force by Taiwan to put serious pressure on the island, and in the future may have some success in utilizing it to benefit China. China has also recognized its future threats and competitors, and is shaping its military to counteract them. More specifically, it recognizes that the US will be a serious competitor, and potential adversary, in the future. In response, it is building an arsenal that includes many systems tailored towards penetrating American weak spots. China is building and reforming its military so that, in the near future, it will be an extremely effective tool for use in advancing the PRC's national interests.
4. Japan
The JSDF is the dark horse of the international military stage. It does not draw attention to itself, and yet is one of the most well equipped and well funded armed institutions in the world. It has a military outfitted with proven equipment that has been upgraded to be superior. It is well trained, and is extremely proficient at territorial defense. Existing in a region that is only tentatively stable (with China, America, and radical Islamism all fighting for supremacy, and the last vestige of militarist communism making ever bellicose threats) demands a strong military, which Japan has. But not only is Japan virtually impregnable (worthy alone to be on the list), but it has also begun to show a willingness to use its forces abroad, and become proactive on a global scale. This will surely translate into more martial use in promoting its national interests.
5. Iran
Iran has an often ignored defense establishment, so one may wonder why it deserves such major mention. Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism against the US, an "official" enemy of the US, and is engaged in war against America. It subverts American interests at every junction, and is one of the biggest impediments to the realization of American domestic and foreign security. Logically, it follows, America should eliminate Iran. However, Iran has a very impressive military for defending itself (and it's a very hard target to hit). Iran's military strength protects it from American invasion and heavy military retaliation. It's military, like Israel's, realizes the nation's ultimate moral purpose: advancing the interests of its citizens. However, unlike Israel's, it is not as proactive. Ergo, it is number five, and the IDF is number two. Regardless, Iran's military is one of the finest at advancing its national interests.
6. Britain
Britain has a well balanced, well funded, powerful military. It is capable of deploying force and projecting power to advance London's interests, and is more powerful than any force it will likely face. That said, it is certainly not the world's powerful. So why put it at number six? For political reasons. Because London is willing to employ the British military to advance its strategic interests, it makes the military that much more useful. The royal armed forces can be and are employed in defense of Britain, in offense against Britain's enemies, and to advance its national interests.
7. Australia
See above.
8. Singapore
Singapore is a small nation with a small military, true. However, they take their defense very seriously. See the comments about Japan to understand the gravity of their situation. Therefore, since they take defense so seriously, their military is very effective in promoting their national interests. It is efficient, well trained, and very capable of defending Singapore. This combination of efficiency and employment give it such a high spot - rightly or wrongly, Singapore believes that they need a (relatively) powerful military to defend their city-state, and it is extremely effective at doing so.
9. Pakistan
Pakistan has a powerful military, which they use (along with the ISI) to effectively control the region. Pakistan's military has been employed to good effect to advance its national interests, and thus earns a high spot.
10. Republic of Korea
The RoK has a strong military that is built around their most compelling national interest - to defeat a potential DPRK attack. Because the military satisfies this condition fairly well, they earn a spot on this list. However, due to political sentiments (that have begun to appear) that are apprehensive and opposed to using the military as a tool of advancing their national interests, South Korea's military is relegated to tenth.
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.
Originally posted by: littlegoku
As for the navy, you do realize that China has the best subs in the word right?
Originally posted by: littlegoku As for the navy, you do realize that China has the best subs in the word right?
As for the navy, you do realize that China has the worst subs in the world right?
Originally posted by: dquan97
My list:
1. USA
2. China
3. UK
4. N Korea
5. Zerg
Originally posted by: littlegoku
India invaded China's boarder in the 1962. The Chinese retaliated and claimed a major victory. As for the navy, you do realize that China has the best subs in the word right? Would you also enlighten me on the ground capibilities of India? What kind of tanks do they have that can compete with China's tanks?
:beer:
Originally posted by: PingSpike
China hasn't invaded taiwan because they'd have to deal with the USA in doing so. China is an emerging super power and should not be fvcked with I say.