Worlds most powerful army? - [Closes 24/06/07]

[---MAD---]

Many people debate which country has the worlds best army. America seems to be on top of the list but they have lost so many wars so how can this be. Maybe they just don't know how to use their army properly, who knows.

Also note that many countries supply other countries with weapons and technology.

Let the debating begin ;)!

[Papershop]

I dont understand why they have to fight?

[Leeroy]

I would say america but the british army is just as power full in my mind, however korean Army is herd to be realy good

[TheGayOne]

Even though isnt the biggest army, the british army is the best for its size

[DPS]

the korean army could blow up the hull world lmao

[Mr.Sam]

"Why don't presidents fight the war, why do they always send the poor"

[Jamie!]

don't china have the largest army, 7million or something?

[Mr.Sam]

Well it isn't America - they always seem to ?"Friendly fire" on each other...


don't china have the largest army, 7million or something?

[:Hazel]

Its whoever has the most personnel. :S

[le harry]

"Why don't presidents fight the war, why do they always send the poor"

Good ol' System of a Down.

Anyways, I would of thought Russia had the biggest army, that or North Korea. NK wouldn't have a big army, just a load of Nuclear Weapons :eusa_whis

[DJ-Vimto]

its not the size of the army that matters, is what you can do with it.

despite being terribly underfunded by our government, i think that the british army is probably the best

[le harry]

Russia is the most powerful imo :)

[Jazza]

Well as the American army have a combined IQ of less than then IQ of Stephen fry its definately not them. I'd say British for tactics as we've had armies before America was discovered but probably Korea as they are well motivated (fight or have your families killed :))

[DiscoPat]

Which country on the planet has the most powerful armed forces? It's not a matter of numbers, although that's a major factor. It's more a matter of other things that are not often discussed.

By size (number of troops), the top ten nations looks like this;

China
United States
India
Korea, North
Russia
Korea, South
Pakistan
Israel
Turkey
Iran

But anyone who has studied military history knows that the number of troops is a misleading measure. There are several factors that make the troops of one army more effective than others. The most obvious modifying factor is weapons and equipment (quantity and quality). Closely related to this are the “combat support” elements. The most important of these are logistics (being able to move troops, and their supplies, long distances and in a timely manner) and maintenance (keeping things in repair and running under all conditions.) Then there are the intangibles (like leadership, training and the most intangible item of all; military tradition.) Apply all of those to the raw number of troops and you get different number. This number is called "combat power."

Top Ten By Combat Power

United States
China
Israel
India
Russia
Korea, South
Korea, North
United Kingdom
Turkey
Pakistan

The most unusual entry here is Israel. But this is because Israel is one of the few nations to have a reserve army that can be mobilized for action more quickly than most countries can get their active duties into shape for combat. The mobilized Israeli armed forces number over half a million troops. In addition, the Israelis have world class equipment and weapons, as well as exceptional intangibles. The downsize of this is that mobilizing its armed forces also cripples the Israeli economy. Under these conditions, Israel must conduct a war that ends within a few months. After that, supplying the armed forces becomes difficult and actual combat power begins to decline.

The other nations in the top ten have large armed forces that are well equipped and trained, at least compared to most nations farther down on the list. Britain’s armed forces, like Israel’s, are better equipped, trained and more experienced than most. Turkey benefits from having a strong military tradition and excellent leadership at the small unit level, as well as good combat training.

Overall, the U.S. combat power is about three times that of second place China, and ten times that of tenth place Pakistan. But another modifying factor is how you plan to use that combat power. Wars are not fought in a vacuum, but in places that often inconvenient places for one side. Most armed forces are optimized for fighting on their own borders; for defending the homeland. Only the United States is capable of quickly moving lots of combat power to anywhere on the planet. Moreover, given a few months, the United States can put enough combat power just about anywhere, and become the major military force in that neighborhood. Countries like Britain and France can move some forces to just about anywhere on the planet. But no one can put forces anywhere quite like the United States.

For most nations with powerful armed forces, it's mainly a matter of having the most formidable military force in the neighborhood.


http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004617.asp

[Jordy]

despite being terribly underfunded by our government,

It's not underfunded at all. It's just we don't spend as much as other countries in comparison and they could do with a lot more money, but it still gets hell loads.

[Titch]

Well britain still have the biggest and most offisant navy in the world by far as we our study it for geography thats how i know, but people rise russia have biggest army giving the average 1/5 plp in rurssia being in army and 1/8 for USA and 1/11 for UK.

well, this is what our geography teacher says, duno if hes rite, he is rite bout navy tho.

[velocity]

this is a stupid debate, nobodys going to find an answer, and to discuss something like this seems pathetic.

[Wootzeh]

The French!

[cocaine]

this is a stupid debate, nobodys going to find an answer, and to discuss something like this seems pathetic.

debates usually dont have an answer.. lmao.

[Nixt]

Its whoever has the most personnel. :S

Not necessarily, the Chinese army are obviously biggest due to their population however it does not make them the most powerful. It is all dependent, as DiscoPat said above, on the skills and training of the army in question. Although size is indeed a big part the other factors are far more influential.
Another thing is where the war is fought. Modern warfare is fought in an increasingly guerilla style so armies are training for this but ultimately different countries train in different ways. Hypothetical situation; the Americans go and fight a guerilla war in the Congo, in an attempt to peacekeep (lol I know it would never happen. Peace and Americans?!), the people fighting the way in the Congo may not match the skill and superiority of the Americans however they are familiar with the jungle and are used to fighting there - the Americans are not. It's like the Vietnam war; the Americans were far superior to the Vietcong in terms of how powerful their army were and yet despite all their tactics, they still did not fulfill their aim of containing Communism.

[N!ck]

........Closely related to this are the “combat support” elements. The most important of these are logistics (being able to move troops, and their supplies, long distances and in a timely manner) and maintenance (keeping things in repair and running under all conditions.) Then there are the intangibles (like leadership, training and the most intangible item of all; military tradition.) Apply all of those to the raw number of troops and you get different number. This number is called "combat power."

Top Ten By Combat Power

United States
China
Israel
India
Russia
Korea, South
Korea, North
United Kingdom
Turkey
Pakistan

The most unusual entry here is Israel. But this is because Israel is one of the few nations to have a reserve army that can be mobilized for action more quickly than most countries can get their active duties into shape for combat. The mobilized Israeli armed forces number over half a million troops. In addition, the Israelis have world ........

But America still seem unable to distinguish between the enemy and the people on their side. Americans are "trigger happy" imo.

[jackass]

China's Red Gaurd are very powerful, yet so is Russia's Soviet Army.
Yet Americas is good also. ;)

[Sammeth.]

The Chinese Army has 7,000,000 troops in total which makes it the 3rd Largest, however it has 2,500,000 ACTIVE troops making it the army with the most active troops.

[Aflux]

North Korea, without a doubt.

If they wanted too, they could wipe out every person that is not Korean.

This isn't a debate, it's just a question, and I've answered it.

[FlyingJesus]

In the 60s Mao claimed he could build a 200,000,000 man army - I haven't read up on that really, but I'm guessing it would be through conscription.

That would be somewhat devastating.

[Yoshimitsui]

I would say us the British, we have the S.A.S, one of the most sophisticated regiments in the world and the M.O.D.

[Mentor]

Well overall id say the Americans, dispite being a pretty incompetent force as a whole, the numbers combined with the technolgy and backing give the the edge.

Chinas miltary probably has the largest potental becuse if the countary went in to a war and the econmey switched to manufactureing wepons they would within a matter of weaks be able to equal any force on earth with ease due to the sheer size of its labor force.

The uk probably has the most powerful force in terms of indervdiaul soldures, although are miltary force is tiny and underfunding, the highly trained and experenced forces we do use are how we still get listed as one of the most miltary powerful countarys on earth. i believe as a comparative the normal level of training for a british troop is somwhere in the reagon of what a US navy seal would get.

[RedStratocas]

Well seeing as the U.S. has enough nuclear weapons to destroy every living thing on earth 15 times over, we've got it made.

But as we're proving right now, we suck at building countries with our army

[Mentor]

Well seeing as the U.S. has enough nuclear weapons to destroy every living thing on earth 15 times over, we've got it made.

But as we're proving right now, we suck at building countries with our army
Nucler streangh is kinda usless though, since quite a few countarys have the firepower to destroy the world, if only 2 or 3 times over... and really destroying it one time is just as good as 30, 40 or a 100 times.

[-:Undertaker:-]

North Korea, without a doubt.

If they wanted too, they could wipe out every person that is not Korean.

This isn't a debate, it's just a question, and I've answered it.

I laughed.

North Korea is in poverty and they have no missles to carry their Nuclear Warheads.

Britain currently has around 180 Nuclear Warheads but USA and Russia have much more than that.

Britain is not powerful, face it.

Our Nuclear Arms program is what will have us, not our army at it's current state and it's numbers.

I'd say in order of top armys.

1 # China/USA
2 # Russia

[jackass]

I would say us the British, we have the S.A.S, one of the most sophisticated regiments in the world and the M.O.D.

LOOOL!

We are no way the most powerful.

[Tom H]

The chinese army is the second biggest employer in the world. That says a lot I think.

The british forces are the best in the world (Army, RAF, Navy) but by itself the army isn't the most powerful.

Its clear that the US has better artillery than the UK. However the british army goes through better training before facing any opposition.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This training issue which many try to use to 'gloryify' the UK army and Navy is absolute rubbish.

America/Russia/China could wipe our little army off the map right away without using Nuclear Arms.

[Oni]

North Korea, without a doubt.

If they wanted too, they could wipe out every person that is not Korean.

This isn't a debate, it's just a question, and I've answered it.
WTH, just because north korea is a secretive country doesnt mean it would come anyone near winning. The country as a whole is poor, compared to the US its nothing.

[:Hazel]

Not necessarily, the Chinese army are obviously biggest due to their population however it does not make them the most powerful. It is all dependent, as DiscoPat said above, on the skills and training of the army in question. Although size is indeed a big part the other factors are far more influential.
Another thing is where the war is fought. Modern warfare is fought in an increasingly guerilla style so armies are training for this but ultimately different countries train in different ways. Hypothetical situation; the Americans go and fight a guerilla war in the Congo, in an attempt to peacekeep (lol I know it would never happen. Peace and Americans?!), the people fighting the way in the Congo may not match the skill and superiority of the Americans however they are familiar with the jungle and are used to fighting there - the Americans are not. It's like the Vietnam war; the Americans were far superior to the Vietcong in terms of how powerful their army were and yet despite all their tactics, they still did not fulfill their aim of containing Communism.

true, thinking logically the army with the most guns/weapons SHOULD win a war, but i suppose it may depend on how good they are and how they have been trained.

[BL!NKEY]

"Why don't presidents fight the war, why do they always send the poor"

Because the poor are usually not as educated as the president or the upper class.

The army is better for the poor because they need money to go to college and stuff.

The rich usually have worked hard and studied so they have enough money to not have to risk their self.

This is all of corse without a draft.


I'd say British for tactics as we've had armies before America was discovered but probably Korea as they are well motivated (fight or have your families killed :))

Lol if that was true then how did America beat the British in a war before they were even a country?



But America still seem unable to distinguish between the enemy and the people on their side. Americans are "trigger happy" imo.

The american army is not stupid. Maybe our president has made some bad decisions but our tactics and army are very effective. Fighting a war in another country without being against a set group of people is hard. Especialy when most people dont believe in teh war. There are like ten times more Iraqis killed than americans because of the technology and training of the troops.

I know that if some other country was to attack us, more people would be for a war and we would have an even better army.


I would say that China has a lot of people and might give america a run for its money because their population is increasing but America would no doubt be able to defend its self if someone was to try to take us over.

[Mentor]

This training issue which many try to use to 'gloryify' the UK army and Navy is absolute rubbish.

America/Russia/China could wipe our little army off the map right away without using Nuclear Arms.

Not really, it is true the british forces are far better trained than those of america, russia or the US. Britain has oped for an small elite force rather than a larger military like the US for example. This is primarily down to two reasons.
1) the British military is massively underfunded, the US's is over funded. We have to go for the cheeper options
2) Compaiured to any of those britain is a tiny island, even if we have the same % of the population in the army as other countarys, where going to be massively outnumber.

So as i said before, in the power to people ratio, britain is one of the most powerful, dispite that due to being rediculsuy outnumbed and out gunned, no we wouldnt be able to take on a full scale war against the US or another countary in the modern day.

Equaly i doubt the US would stand a chance against china without nuclar force if it came down to that, for much the same reason. ( in chinas case that it would likely have more soldures than the opposeing countary had people)

[DiscoPat]

To be honest most countrys can wipe out any country, like; they have the power to, but it all depends on who does it quicker and with more advanced weopons.

[BL!NKEY]

Equaly i doubt the US would stand a chance against china without nuclar force if it came down to that, for much the same reason. ( in chinas case that it would likely have more soldures than the opposeing countary had people)

The US has far better technology than China.

But with that said I dont think eaither one of us could overtake the other on their own land

there are two things to think about with powerful military


. Can this country defend itself from an invasion from its neighbours?
2. Can this country attack another country, either across sea or across land?

[RedStratocas]

Nucler streangh is kinda usless though, since quite a few countarys have the firepower to destroy the world, if only 2 or 3 times over... and really destroying it one time is just as good as 30, 40 or a 100 times.

On to other galaxies! That Glorax race cant destroy itself you know!

[BL!NKEY]

This thread on a military forum has some people who probably know more about this stuff than we do.

It is interesting and I read all three pages.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6140

[Mentor]

The US has far better technology than China.

But with that said I dont think eaither one of us could overtake the other on their own land

there are two things to think about with powerful military
China make most of the US's technology.

[crans]

China make most of the US's technology.

No, your wrong.

China is only a souce to make it.. "cheap labour"

[BL!NKEY]

China make most of the US's technology.

Well like in terms of our air force (the hi tech stealth bombers) and the other stuff like that in all types of the US military.

China might have a lot of people but They wouldn't be able to come into the US and take us over with population only.

[mmhmm.]

ok... I underlined stuff, in case you just wanted the gist of what I'm saying.

First, this whole thing about friendly fire is highly overrated in this thread. Maybe the United States have had some issues with that, but not enough to hinder it much. Friendly fire isn't a justifiable reason to say the US isnt the most powerful army.

Second, the United States isn't full of idiots. The US tactics aren't as terrible as implied here. I dunno about British tactics, but that isn't enough to make Britain the most powerful army.

Third, people say Britain is powerful for its size, but it couldn't take on someone like China. Ok..? Will your good ratio help if you ever had to go to war against a bigger country, then? We're looking for the most powerful army here, not the best people to power ratio.

Lastly, just look at the world around us. Fear has a major part in any war. Who is most feared in the world will probably give you a good idea on power, simply because that country must have something that makes other countries think it can't handle them. So I'd say:

1.) China/US
-They have the tactics, the size, the power, the fear - just which one has more, I'm not sure)

3.) N Korea
-They have... the fear. They aren't restrained by rules like the US is. They could fight dirty openly because their North Korea and its expected.)

[Mentor]

Well like in terms of our air force (the hi tech stealth bombers) and the other stuff like that in all types of the US military.

China might have a lot of people but They wouldn't be able to come into the US and take us over with population only.
I see China as more of a sleeping giant, if it was forced in to action and its labor force switched to military applications it would very fast make up the difference between it and the US's capability's.
If the US tryed to invade china i really dont think it would have any chance of success.

crans: What difference does that make, they still make it. If they build tanks, even of US design, it aint hard for them to use em thereselfs you know, the same is true of a great deal of other equipment and wepons as well. o.0



First, this whole thing about friendly fire is highly overrated in this thread. Maybe the United States have had some issues with that, but not enough to hinder it much. Friendly fire isn't a justifiable reason to say the US isnt the most powerful army.
When you hear friendly fire, which miltary forces name is ALWAYS attached to it.
The US's army is probably the only army that can go in to a conflict and shoot more of its own people than its enemy does. (The iraq war is an example, although only in the innital conflict/invasion, not the long drawn out overstay)


Second, the United States isn't full of idiots. The US tactics aren't as terrible as implied here. I dunno about British tactics, but that isn't enough to make Britain the most powerful army.
It doesnt make the US's tactics not horribly bad ether.


Third, people say Britain is powerful for its size, but it couldn't take on someone like China. Ok..? Will your good ratio help if you ever had to go to war against a bigger country, then? We're looking for the most powerful army here, not the best people to power ratio.
You need to read the entire posts. People have all said, briatain is powerful for its size, but other military forces are more powerful.
That doesnt change the fact the birtish military is still better trained.


Lastly, just look at the world around us. Fear has a major part in any war. Who is most feared in the world will probably give you a good idea on power, simply because that country must have something that makes other countries think it can't handle them. So I'd say:
Iran must have one of the most powerful military forces in the world then... second only to iraq. Fear aint a good judge.

[DaveTaylor]

Considering Israel designed the american tanks, which then get sent back to them for a cost of course via america, plus alot of the Israel designs end up in the american armed forces i would have to say Israel, they may not look a strong army/country but alot is put into there army something like 45% of GNP is into the army. Everyone from 18-21 goes into the army so your trained to fight if they need you the army covers all the aspects of the securiy guards to air force pilots etc.

[Mentor]

Considering Israel designed the american tanks, which then get sent back to them for a cost of course via america, plus alot of the Israel designs end up in the american armed forces i would have to say Israel, they may not look a strong army/country but alot is put into there army something like 45% of GNP is into the army. Everyone from 18-21 goes into the army so your trained to fight if they need you the army covers all the aspects of the securiy guards to air force pilots etc.

Thats true although israils army dont really have any abilty to project force outside there own geographical aria. Also there militarys only ever been used against much weaker forces never against a equal opponent. they definitely come high up on the scale, but i wouldnt say there top.

[mmhmm.]

When you hear friendly fire, which miltary forces name is ALWAYS attached to it.
The US's army is probably the only army that can go in to a conflict and shoot more of its own people than its enemy does. (The iraq war is an example, although only in the innital conflict/invasion, not the long drawn out overstay)
ok... does that make it fall dramatically in rank are the most powerful army? that's the question.


It doesnt make the US's tactics not horribly bad ether.
are you saying they are? :S


You need to read the entire posts. People have all said, briatain is powerful for its size, but other military forces are more powerful.
That doesnt change the fact the birtish military is still better trained.


Iran must have one of the most powerful military forces in the world then... second only to iraq. Fear aint a good judge.
i have read the entire post, thanks. that still doesn't change the fact that the british military training isn't going to make it most powerful. once again, that's the question.

and people do fear the iranian military..? why do you think people, like bush, are making such a big deal about them having nuclear weapons? but still, iran isn't in the top ten, and its not second to iraq. have you heard the stories about iraq's dysfunctional army at the moment? the one being supported the the US army, who isn't doing a good job at building it i might add.

[DiscoPat]

Just to add, Turkey has a powerfull military force as well, looking back at history backs this up, and again we have a system that when your 18 you do 18 months military training, everyone does different sections like if your studying ot be a doctor then you will go to the medical side of the army and get extra training etc and if a war is broken out everyone gets back to the army to fight.

I believe we are one of the richest in the middle east and on most topics relating to military forces, Turkey is always involved + we have our own designed tanks and weopons as well. Turks also have a thing where we are very sensitive when it comes to things about our country so that pushes us as well.

This is the official site of the Turkish army, its in turkish but obviously u can slide through the images with the arrows, it just shows some of the weopons n stuff if your interested.
http://www.tsk.mil.tr/galeri/pages/10_1.htm

[:-Mystical.Dave-]

Obviously North Korea is poor, why you ask? Because all Kim Jong-Il spends money on is the Military and himself (there are roughly 1,000,000 active men in the North Korean Army).

[Virgin Mary]

Britain, seeing as we can always bring the rest of the Commonwealth into ours wars if we needed and we have the SAS etc.

[alexxxxx]

I think everybody overrates russia, from their soviet times.

[DaveTaylor]

Thank you mentor for agreeing with me, thats a rare thing :P, anyway alot of weapons are designed in israel then modded for other countrys eg, - the maverick tanks in israel are the same as the ones in america but differant casing etc, same as the apaches, i even heard the stealth plane was designed in israel but I haven't got resources to back this one up

[DiscoPat]

Thank you mentor for agreeing with me, thats a rare thing :P, anyway alot of weapons are designed in israel then modded for other countrys eg, - the maverick tanks in israel are the same as the ones in america but differant casing etc, same as the apaches, i even heard the stealth plane was designed in israel but I haven't got resources to back this one up
Thats true, Israel makes most of the weopons and sells it on to other countrys, there are also rumours that israel runs america.. Obviously not offically but you know.. in the dark side.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[FlyingJesus]

Thats true, Israel makes most of the weopons and sells it on to other countrys, there are also rumours that israel runs america.. Obviously not offically but you know.. in the dark side.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

rofl that's all part of the anti-Jew "bring down the Zog machine" thing. I've seen one of their propaganda posters (which I just thought was funny) saying

"JOIN THE US ARMY, AND FIGHT FOR ISRAEL"

amused me anyway.

[Dan2nd]

Britain ruled the world once we can do it again ! :D If I thought about this seriously I would say the U.S are the most powerful army :)

[Aflux]

I laughed.

North Korea is in poverty and they have no missles to carry their Nuclear Warheads.

Britain currently has around 180 Nuclear Warheads but USA and Russia have much more than that.

Britain is not powerful, face it.

Our Nuclear Arms program is what will have us, not our army at it's current state and it's numbers.

I'd say in order of top armys.

1 # China/USA
2 # Russia
Who said anything about nuclear?

[Yum999]

Top Five Most Powerful Militaries on Earth

1) China
2) USA
3) Russia
4) UK
5) Australia

North Korea has nuclear missiles, but it's too scared to use them. If they did they'd face one heck of a backlash and they'd have none left. If you count the commonwealth as "UK" then it's right up there with China and the US, if not it's about 4th. The USA & UK make up the most powerful alliance on the planet.

[niaux]

Russia when it was once the soviet union, Don't know really now. I think germany has a strong army too... use brits use strategys, we don't need numbers :) As for americans they just bomb their enemies, and by bomb i dont mean kaboom bombs, i mean absoulety going wild :D

[Virgin Mary]

Size does matter because the Nazis were very tactical and skilled, they basically took over most of Europe then got owned by Russia (though then then-Soviet Union was more serious about its military than Russia now is). The same thing happened to Napoleon really. So I think communist armies are the best because they have raw power behind them.

[Ekalb]

Australian Defence Force obviously.
Tbh I think the main reason people are saying Britain is because they are from Britain. They might have had control over the world a few centuries ago but shiny swords are nothing to nukes and artillery. If most of the most powerful countries went to war (say, the earth was being killed by global warming or an ice age and they were fighting for new land) I'd say since it's not a 'blow up half the Earth and win' war the dominate powers would be US, Russia, Asia, Europe. I'm not sure how Britain would go without support from the rest of Europe.

[Shawnstra]

USA ;)

[Virgin Mary]

Australian Defence Force obviously.
Tbh I think the main reason people are saying Britain is because they are from Britain. They might have had control over the world a few centuries ago but shiny swords are nothing to nukes and artillery. If most of the most powerful countries went to war (say, the earth was being killed by global warming or an ice age and they were fighting for new land) I'd say since it's not a 'blow up half the Earth and win' war the dominate powers would be US, Russia, Asia, Europe. I'm not sure how Britain would go without support from the rest of Europe.
As part of the commonwealth, if it ever came to such measures the British would just involve your country in a war.

[HabboIsKrouts]

Well seeing as the U.S. has enough nuclear weapons to destroy every living thing on earth 15 times over, we've got it made.

But as we're proving right now, we suck at building countries with our army

That's the biggest loads of *beeep* i have heard so far on this debate, it's not about nuclear weapons, it's about how good the countires soldiers are, Navy, Air force, special forced, And intelegence, over-all if the whole world had with the same ammount of artillery, planes, ships and soldiers, the British would win hands down. And our air force is upgrading, with new aircrafts being designed. Such as the F35 wich is being co-designed with the U.S. And our Navy is being upgraded within the next 15years. The new nuclear submarines, 2 new fighter crafts, those the size of the new French aircraft carrier (can't remember the name) .

And why the hell are people putting north korea, south korea, and australlia up there? just because they have nuclear weapons. techincally south korea does'nt have nuc's. North korea has yet to say it has weapons, and if they did the maximum they would have is a measley 10. So what the hell are some people on about, armies are totally different from nuclear weapons, nuc's are just used to scare other countries from having wars with people who have nuc's. its 99% possible any of the nuclear weapons would ever be used.

Oh and, http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_has_the_best_army_in_the_world

that should hold soem answers, the poster of that was a foreigners from a place liek Australlia can't really remember. :)

[HabboIsKrouts]

Also,
I laughed.

North Korea is in poverty and they have no missles to carry their Nuclear Warheads.

Britain currently has around 180 Nuclear Warheads but USA and Russia have much more than that.

Britain is not powerful, face it.

Our Nuclear Arms program is what will have us, not our army at it's current state and it's numbers.

I'd say in order of top armys.

1 # China/USA
2 # Russia

I and i think many others would've laughed at you for that post, you obviouseley know nothing about polotices and power/armies, narb. :)

and one other word for those ''Americans'', Vietnam.

sorry for double post.

[HabboIsKrouts]

Also not to mention we train most of the other countires in the world. =>

[Mentor]

Australian Defence Force obviously.
Tbh I think the main reason people are saying Britain is because they are from Britain. They might have had control over the world a few centuries ago but shiny swords are nothing to nukes and artillery. If most of the most powerful countries went to war (say, the earth was being killed by global warming or an ice age and they were fighting for new land) I'd say since it's not a 'blow up half the Earth and win' war the dominate powers would be US, Russia, Asia, Europe. I'm not sure how Britain would go without support from the rest of Europe.
Granted britain is small, but its wrong to say its not powerful. Britain still has the most powerful projection force in europe itself, we can put more troops and firepower anywhere in the world than any other countary in europe is capable of. Thats not to say we would then be able to invade another country in europe successfully though, take Germany for example, it has next to no projection ability, it hasnt got the resources and equipment needed to invade or attack any ware, but this isnt because of a lack of military strength, its simply that its military strength lies in its defense force, even a military like the USA would have a very hard time trying to invade the place. The same i believe is true of austraila, having a very strong defense force and also a limited projection ability, although they lack the resources to make an substantial attack on its own, at a distant target. Although would still easly dominate most of the surrounding country's.

So its hard to really say what military power is, since different military are equipt for different things. Very few military powers have projection abilitys, needed to invade for example, which is why the UK still ranks quite highly being one of the few with this capability (Spain i believe has the next most powerful projection force in europe (i may be wrong on this one).
But just because a countrys may lack projection ability, it doesn't mean the military force isnt more than capable of defending its own territory, more effectively than the armys of projection capable country's may be.

So its hard to judge an overall idea of military power.

[RedStratocas]

That's the biggest loads of *beeep* i have heard so far on this debate, it's not about nuclear weapons, it's about how good the countires soldiers are.

No. Sorry. The Army includes what weapons they have. Im pretty sure one idiot with a machine gun can wipe out an small army of super intelligent soldiers armed with number 2 pencils.

[Mentor]

No. Sorry. The Army includes what weapons they have. Im pretty sure one idiot with a machine gun can wipe out an small army of super intelligent soldiers armed with number 2 pencils.

Actually, im pretty sure an SAS member for example would be quite capable of taking out a stupid machine gunner with just a pencil.... or maybe even a properly trained capable one.

In fact, i think most people would be able to with the stupid one, just hide behind somthing till they run out of ammunition.

[HabboIsKrouts]

init *****. He obv knows nothing about warfare.

[RedStratocas]

Actually, im pretty sure an SAS member for example would be quite capable of taking out a stupid machine gunner with just a pencil.... or maybe even a properly trained capable one.

In fact, i think most people would be able to with the stupid one, just hide behind somthing till they run out of ammunition.

It was just an example. Weapons DO matter. And weapons ARE part of the army.

[HabboIsKrouts]

Technically nuc's arent guns theyre bombs.. :S rofl.

[Mentor]

It was just an example. Weapons DO matter. And weapons ARE part of the army.
Granted, but your example was still flawed. Weapons may be part of the army, but weapons are useless without soldiers. A solderer can fight without a weapon, but a machine gun cant fight without a solderer.
Hence my belief that soldiers are still a very important factor in modern warfare.


Even nukes dont fire themselves.

[Misawa]

Wow, you underestimate the SAS. They are the most skilled tac-team in the world.

Undoubtedly the world's most powerful army is America's, followed by Russia. Britain is up there though due to its degree of military prowess and skill.

But, that won't matter, because the Chinese will take over the world anyway.

[Axel]

"Why don't presidents fight the war, why do they always send the poor"

BYOB ftw.

If you gave the aussies a load of weapons they'd make a good army.

[:-Mystical.Dave-]

Britain, seeing as we can always bring the rest of the Commonwealth into ours wars if we needed and we have the SAS etc.

What are you smoking? Britain no longer has administrative control over any of those countries. In Canada, we do not go to war if the Queen says so. She's the head of state, and must sign all new laws passed by the government, but she really will not refuse. However, we do not have to do as she says, neither does Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, etc (all Commonwealth countries). We do what we believe is correct, not as the Monarchy or Britain says.

[Mentor]

Wow, you underestimate the SAS. They are the most skilled tac-team in the world.

Undoubtedly the world's most powerful army is America's, followed by Russia. Britain is up there though due to its degree of military prowess and skill.

But, that won't matter, because the Chinese will take over the world anyway.

I dont see why Russia is so high, its not the cold war any more, russias military efforts arnt what they used to be, theres a very limited projection ability, and a relatively small military for such a large place. China is easily dominate over it. (then again there are a few incidents where Russia has exerted miltary strength that it supposedly dosnt have)

[Virgin Mary]

What are you smoking? Britain no longer has administrative control over any of those countries. In Canada, we do not go to war if the Queen says so. She's the head of state, and must sign all new laws passed by the government, but she really will not refuse. However, we do not have to do as she says, neither does Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, etc (all Commonwealth countries). We do what we believe is correct, not as the Monarchy or Britain says.
The armies of the commonwealth swear oath to the Queen, the military decorations of the commonwealth are all awarded by the Queen. In the world wars, each of the commonwealth countries came in regiments to fight against the Nazis. The Queen is the commander-in-chief. Obviously this wouldn't need to happen again lest another World War broke out, in which case I would think the governments of the commonwealth would intervene if Britain needed help. What you are all also forgetting is that Britain is tiny, it's an island smaller than the states in the USA, but it's still one of the most powerful armies and the most highly trained in the world.

[:-Mystical.Dave-]

The armies of the commonwealth swear oath to the Queen, the military decorations of the commonwealth are all awarded by the Queen. In the world wars, each of the commonwealth countries came in regiments to fight against the Nazis. The Queen is the commander-in-chief. Obviously this wouldn't need to happen again lest another World War broke out, in which case I would think the governments of the commonwealth would intervene if Britain needed help. What you are all also forgetting is that Britain is tiny, it's an island smaller than the states in the USA, but it's still one of the most powerful armies and the most highly trained in the world.
We do not have to fight for the queen if Britain is in a war. We are sovereign and are a separate country that used to be a colony of the UK, but are just now a commonwealth country, which is all the former colonies of the UK. Highly trained armies meant nothing in the past. It was biggest army won, because they had many more people to throw at the enemy in order to inflict the greatest amount of casualties and damage. Look at USSR in WWII, they took over 6 weeks to mobilize their massive army, they had crappy weapons, bad training and still crushed the Nazis (because of their numbers and the climate of Russia, which is where they fought), who were the most skilled army of the time. Russia lost around 20 million soldiers in that war, and by the end Germany had lost 7-9 million of the strongest people (because those were the ones who fought in the war). Nowadays, it doesn't work that way. It is all based on firepower. The strong and powerful British and American soldiers get blown up by an IED on a random street in Iraq, because there is no way to fight against that. But those who control the skies win. The Iraqi's may have a few rocket propelled grenades or surface to air missiles, but that do not have close enough to down all the planes. I believe modern wars are based on the air combat and not land combat, because no countries have so many troops to throw away in battle as before (although I'm sure North Korea, Iran and maybe China would not hesitate to do so because they are Communist/Dictator regimes that are not out for the interests of the common man).

[Kardan]

America war wise.
China global power wise.

[GommeInc]

I wouldn't say America has a powerful or controlled army. They shoot anything with a pulse and put P.O.Ws in homo-erotic positions. China, Russia or North Korea probably have powerful armies.

[DiscoPat]

mess with korea and your dust lol

[HabboIsKrouts]

We do not have to fight for the queen if Britain is in a war. We are sovereign and are a separate country that used to be a colony of the UK, but are just now a commonwealth country, which is all the former colonies of the UK. Highly trained armies meant nothing in the past. It was biggest army won, because they had many more people to throw at the enemy in order to inflict the greatest amount of casualties and damage. Look at USSR in WWII, they took over 6 weeks to mobilize their massive army, they had crappy weapons, bad training and still crushed the Nazis (because of their numbers and the climate of Russia, which is where they fought), who were the most skilled army of the time. Russia lost around 20 million soldiers in that war, and by the end Germany had lost 7-9 million of the strongest people (because those were the ones who fought in the war). Nowadays, it doesn't work that way. It is all based on firepower. The strong and powerful British and American soldiers get blown up by an IED on a random street in Iraq, because there is no way to fight against that. But those who control the skies win. The Iraqi's may have a few rocket propelled grenades or surface to air missiles, but that do not have close enough to down all the planes. I believe modern wars are based on the air combat and not land combat, because no countries have so many troops to throw away in battle as before (although I'm sure North Korea, Iran and maybe China would not hesitate to do so because they are Communist/Dictator regimes that are not out for the interests of the common man).

yea. so that's why u joined int eh war against the nazi's? stop acting liek you know it all. and you are totally underestimating the British army, it's the 2nd best behind U.S and many people know/believe this. And you also forget how much britain does for other countries, you forget this, we train your armies also.

[Breakfloor]

Britain taught america evrything they know about war. when WWII came america was like WDH!?!?! AMGZ
they didnt know how to train troops britain taught them. but it was USSR

But now Britain/china

[HabboIsKrouts]

Britain taught america evrything they know about war. when WWII came america was like WDH!?!?! AMGZ
they didnt know how to train troops britain taught them. but it was USSR

But now Britain/china

Totally agree there. :)

[GommeInc]

yea. so that's why u joined int eh war against the nazi's? stop acting liek you know it all. and you are totally underestimating the British army, it's the 2nd best behind U.S and many people know/believe this. And you also forget how much britain does for other countries, you forget this, we train your armies also.
I'm sure the US army isn't that good. Big, yes. Tactical, no. If you give them planes/helecopters, they're missile marked UN convoys to the ground or generally shoot you with a machine gun when and where unappropriate.

[BL!NKEY]

Granted, but your example was still flawed. Weapons may be part of the army, but weapons are useless without soldiers. A solderer can fight without a weapon, but a machine gun cant fight without a solderer.
Hence my belief that soldiers are still a very important factor in modern warfare.


Even nukes dont fire themselves.

True in the past but in the future and present unmanned vehicles and planes are going to become very popular for the US at least. There will be commanders at base camp that would approve the decision to like shoot a missile or something life threatening through cameras.


So money is going to be the key factor.

[GommeInc]

True in the past but in the future and present unmanned vehicles and planes are going to become very popular for the US at least. There will be commanders at base camp that would approve the decision to like shoot a missile or something life threatening through cameras.


So money is going to be the key factor.
But wouldn't the unmanned machines, vehicles, planes still require some technician to be behind the cameras and computers in order to fire the weapons and drive? I am sceptical to whether or not it would be a good idea to have planes fly themselves with no control from a technician or ground pilot or Nukes fire themselves when and where they feel like it...

The fact remains, that even "unmanned" machines are not what make an army, but the fact that the people controlling them are.

[indian8132]

The IRA (Irish Republican Army) were pretty powerful..

And no, I aint saying it cause im Irish :P

[-Eyeless-]

To be fair it is not that easy to decide unless you had a battle royale or something like that, each army is better at different things, Like the israeli armys intelligence sector, and the british have "better Trained" soldiers and China has one of the largest armies so you would need to define what you think the meaning of "best" is in this debate before you could decide

[HotelUser]

America I would say. Certainly not England nor Canada :( lucky we arn't fighting America.

[mmhmm.]

Britain taught america evrything they know about war. when WWII came america was like WDH!?!?! AMGZ
they didnt know how to train troops britain taught them. but it was USSR

But now Britain/china
<history lesson>
during the world wars, america considered themselves isolationists. why involve themselves in european affairs? after pearl harbor, they entered wwii as you probably know. may i remind you that britain was pretty cornered by the germans at one point, especially after france fell. america wasn't like "WDH!?!?! AMGZ" once they entered. hesitant at first, yes. but pretty helpful once involved.
</history lesson>

& its funny how the fact that britain was the most powerful empire... in, what, the 1500s... keeps coming up. are we talking about present circumstances? if so, it really doesnt matter if britain was powerful centuries ago.

& its funny how people keep saying that britain taught the US and other countries what they know. um... these other countries have progressed from this and developed better techniques. surely you've heard of progress, right?

also, how do you measure tactical ability? i don't understand how you're coming up with some stuff.

am i the only girl here? :S

[BL!NKEY]

The fact remains, that even "unmanned" machines are not what make an army, but the fact that the people controlling them are.

But as we go into the future there will be less ground troops needing to be used by the technological advanced countries.

Maybe only one commander needs to be in-charge of monitoring 10 tanks-like-vechcles which would have taken 30 men actually in the vehicles now a days.

Having numbers is going to be less of an advantage as it is now.

Technology and money is the key.

Yes there will need to be more engineers to build the future unmanned vehicles but people are more willing to be engineers than fighting on the front line.

[Mentor]

<history lesson>
during the world wars, america considered themselves isolationists. why involve themselves in european affairs? after pearl harbor, they entered wwii as you probably know. may i remind you that britain was pretty cornered by the germans at one point, especially after france fell. america wasn't like "WDH!?!?! AMGZ" once they entered. hesitant at first, yes. but pretty helpful once involved.
Well in WW1 the war was pretty much over by the time the US entered, which was only becuse a U-boat sank one of there ships. Before that they were getting rich by selling to both sides.

And in WW2 russia was the bigger factor o.0 theres also alot of specuation it was americas fear of russia (and communism) that drove them to take alot of the decisive action they did in ww2 "/



</history lesson>

& its funny how the fact that britain was the most powerful empire... in, what, the 1500s... keeps coming up. are we talking about present circumstances? if so, it really doesnt matter if britain was powerful centuries ago.
You evidently failed history? the British empire was still around right up to WW2... Hardly centurys ago..


& its funny how people keep saying that britain taught the US and other countries what they know. um... these other countries have progressed from this and developed better techniques. surely you've heard of progress, right?
The british army remains one of the most highly trained in the world, so im sceptical of your use of the word "better"


also, how do you measure tactical ability? i don't understand how you're coming up with some stuff.
How well an army uses it resources to complete an objective, is the usual measure of how well its tactics are working. Americas track record is far from shineing on this front.


But as we go into the future there will be less ground troops needing to be used by the technological advanced countries.

Maybe only one commander needs to be in-charge of monitoring 10 tanks-like-vechcles which would have taken 30 men actually in the vehicles now a days.

Having numbers is going to be less of an advantage as it is now.

Technology and money is the key.

Yes there will need to be more engineers to build the future unmanned vehicles but people are more willing to be engineers than fighting on the front line.
This really depends on how advanced the military robots are expected to become, current technology's still require pilots whom control vecials by remote, rather than just monitor a machine that does everything automatically.
But as you rightly said, as technology progresses such militry robots will likely become a reality, although the man power behind them is still an important issue, since a highly skilled and educated work force would be key in createing, maintaing and inventing such devices. And budget isnt nessarly the main factor controling this, take china, it can spend alot less, yet get a far greater amount of highly skilled works on to a task, than the us could spending a great deal more.
The genral level of education within a countary and the costs of labor would all play an issue, if this were the case. Economic power and Military power would merge to some extent if this were to happen "/

[HabboIsKrouts]

Well in WW1 the war was pretty much over by the time the US entered, which was only becuse a U-boat sank one of there ships. Before that they were getting rich by selling to both sides.

And in WW2 russia was the bigger factor o.0 theres also alot of specuation it was americas fear of russia (and communism) that drove them to take alot of the decisive action they did in ww2 "/



You evidently failed history? the British empire was still around right up to WW2... Hardly centurys ago..


The british army remains one of the most highly trained in the world, so im sceptical of your use of the word "better"


How well an army uses it resources to complete an objective, is the usual measure of how well its tactics are working. Americas track record is far from shineing on this front.


This really depends on how advanced the military robots are expected to become, current technology's still require pilots whom control vecials by remote, rather than just monitor a machine that does everything automatically.
But as you rightly said, as technology progresses such militry robots will likely become a reality, although the man power behind them is still an important issue, since a highly skilled and educated work force would be key in createing, maintaing and inventing such devices. And budget isnt nessarly the main factor controling this, take china, it can spend alot less, yet get a far greater amount of highly skilled works on to a task, than the us could spending a great deal more.
The genral level of education within a countary and the costs of labor would all play an issue, if this were the case. Economic power and Military power would merge to some extent if this were to happen "/

This guy talks some proper sence, let that be a lesson too all of you, to some of those big headed yanks (not all just a small minority who think the world owes the U.S everything) America tried too take all the glory of both WW's, they did help, but they only came in for a short ammount of time unlike the british and french.

[HotelUser]

http://www.cylist.com/List/400300720/
Check that out.

[BL!NKEY]

And in WW2 russia was the bigger factor o.0 theres also alot of specuation it was americas fear of russia (and communism) that drove them to take alot of the decisive action they did in ww2 "/


Lol if America didn't get involved in WWII Hitler would have taken over all of europe.

America invaded Normandy and were able to fight the germans back. The of the cold winter helped the russians keep the germans from going east and taking over Russia. Russia almost had to surrender after being cornered in a city.

Then America was the main force against Japan to end the war. They battles on many islands to get close enough to mainland Japan and made the decision to drop the bomb. Russia might have had some impact on Americans decision to drop the bomb but that doesn't mean that Russia gets the credit for scaring the US into ending the war.

[Virgin Mary]

Lol if America didn't get involved in WWII Hitler would have taken over all of europe.

America invaded Normandy and were able to fight the germans back. The of the cold winter helped the russians keep the germans from going east and taking over Russia. Russia almost had to surrender after being cornered in a city.

Then America was the main force against Japan to end the war. They battles on many islands to get close enough to mainland Japan and made the decision to drop the bomb. Russia might have had some impact on Americans decision to drop the bomb but that doesn't mean that Russia gets the credit for scaring the US into ending the war.
Russia defeated Hitler, they got all the way into Berlin but Hitler committed suicide before they got there. By the time American finally decided to join in, Britain and France had already worn the Germans down anyway. There's a big difference between winning a war you've fought from the start and intervening at the last minute.

[BL!NKEY]

Russia defeated Hitler, they got all the way into Berlin but Hitler committed suicide before they got there. By the time American finally decided to join in, Britain and France had already worn the Germans down anyway. There's a big difference between winning a war you've fought from the start and intervening at the last minute.

Wearing the opponent down doesn't mean you won the war. The france built their maginot line and the Germans just went around it and invaded.

here is a quote from another forum about this


There can be absolutely no argument that America had an enormous impact on the outcome of WWII. Militarily the US beat Japan almost singlehandedly (with small but vital contributions by Australia, New Zealand and the UK).

In Europe their military impact is not so clear cut. It required the total combined effort of Commonwealth Forces and the American effort to defeat the Germans in the West. Mind you that combined effort would not have been enough if the Soviets had not so totally dominated the land war from '43 onwards. Certainly neither the Americans nor the Commonwealth could have defeated the Germans by themselves. It truly required an Allied effort to do so.

America's greatest single contribution was in the field of industrial capability. The US far outstripped the resources of the UK, German and Russia combined. America was a manufacturing dynamo, able to supply all it's own needs plus a considerable amount of both Britains and Russia's needs as well.

Without America's industrial power Europe today (in all likelihood) would be under the heel of the Communist Russia.


The US was able to keep Japan from joining the Axis earlier.

[Mentor]

Lol if America didn't get involved in WWII Hitler would have taken over all of europe.
How would that work? Russia end up occupied most of Germany in the end,hitlers problem was being attacked on all fronts "/ Even if the US had never joined the war, the only real difference would be russias on infludence in eurpoe, martial aid and many other of the americans useful contributions were primarly to try and keep communism at bay.

Much of the war, like in ww1, america was selling to both sides.


America invaded Normandy and were able to fight the germans back. The of the cold winter helped the russians keep the germans from going east and taking over Russia. Russia almost had to surrender after being cornered in a city.
Russias military power was huge it was just very ineffective and ill-equiped as stalin had killed all the generals, majors... well the pretty much the whole of the upper command structure was missing... Stalin killed more Russian soldures than Germany ever did.
Also soldures from the UK, Canada, France and poland also took part in the battle of Normandy, not just the US



Then America was the main force against Japan to end the war. They battles on many islands to get close enough to mainland Japan and made the decision to drop the bomb. Russia might have had some impact on Americans decision to drop the bomb but that doesn't mean that Russia gets the credit for scaring the US into ending the war.
They droped the bomb becuse the russians were getting read to invade japan, and japan hadent really played much of a roll in the eurpoean conflict, there dispute was primarly with the US itself "/

[Sharpsterz]

The Ones With The Nuclear Bombs And Subs Maybe?

[Leprachaun--X]

Good ol' System of a Down.

Anyways, I would of thought Russia had the biggest army, that or North Korea. NK wouldn't have a big army, just a load of Nuclear Weapons :eusa_whis

Russia may be the largest country and have the largest amount of troops but they lack structure and the country is quite poor.

In the 2nd world war they were told to take the gu from the dead body of the person in the line infront of them because they could only afford for the first few lines to have guns.


China however not only have economical strength they have tactical advantage and have lots of allies and suppliers. It also has a huge population (said to soon surpass that of america) and has superior technology to most countries.

Like the Vietnamese in the Vietnam war, China could probibly defeat them seeing as China are very similar to Vietnam and very close to Vietnam but alot bigger. I think a country like that, so organised and with great technology at its disposal could easily defeat America.

I think Vietnam actually showed that America is weak in its military force and until then many thought it to be THE most powerful country. But after being defeated by tiny Vietnam it shows that America is weak and I beleive China could easily overpower America or even Britain.


Having said that, if a war was to break out between China and the USA then you could count on America starting a Nuclear war which would devistate the world.

I may sound like a "Hippy" but it's pathetic of America to use fear and threat to try and control the other countries all to be seen powerful again and would rather start a nuclear war than be defeated.

[Virgin Mary]

It also has a huge population (said to soon surpass that of america) and has superior technology to most countries.
China's is already larger, it's over 4 times the size of the USA's population. It is the most populated country in the world, not including those who have emmigrated.

[mmhmm.]

Well in WW1 the war was pretty much over by the time the US entered, which was only becuse a U-boat sank one of there ships. Before that they were getting rich by selling to both sides.
err... no, president wilson wasn't going to enter the war after the attack on the passenger ship. it was when the germans tried to turn mexico against the US. check it, its true.



You evidently failed history? the British empire was still around right up to WW2... Hardly centurys ago..
wrong again buddy. i'm doing well in a.p. world history.
anywho, the british empire may have still been around, but it wasn't as dominant as it was centuries ago.



The british army remains one of the most highly trained in the world, so im sceptical of your use of the word "better"
let's try this again. maybe read slower or something. people say that britain taught other countries everything they know. but these other countries have progressed a whole lot on their own since this time, hence the term "better". therefore, this fact can't be used as proof that britain has the most powerful army. k?


And in WW2 russia was the bigger factor o.0 theres also alot of specuation it was americas fear of russia (and communism) that drove them to take alot of the decisive action they did in ww2 "/
no again, the reason was japan's attack on pearl harbor. that's why the americans almost single handedly beat japan. most of the US's problem was with japan.



Much of the war, like in ww1, america was selling to both sides.
well, i learned that america supplied allied troops only before they entered the war. i can't picture america selling to germany and japan =/ however, i don't have any proof of which is correct.

& we have to remember we were taught in different countries about the wars, therefore we have different aspects on what really happened.

[Pyroka]

I've got to say China, they have dedicated soldiers and really it's any 2 soldiers against one Chinese soldier. They are, rock 'ard m88!! :P But hey, that's just my opinion on the most powerful, although I think USA's army and the SAS also come trailing in since they're pretty good.

[HabboIsKrouts]

That site someone said earlier says it all really ---> http://www.cylist.com/List/400300720/

[Catzsy]

Many people debate which country has the worlds best army. America seems to be on top of the list but they have lost so many wars so how can this be. Maybe they just don't know how to use their army properly, who knows.

Also note that many countries supply other countries with weapons and technology.

Let the debating begin ;)!

I find the start to this debate a little misleading if not a bit anti-american.
They lost the Vietnam War. What other wars have they lost? Many countries have lost a lot more wars than them.

Anyway the world's best army has to be the Nato peace keeping force which is there to help rather than cause problems and is a coalition of many countries.

[mmhmm.]

I find the start to this debate a little misleading if not a bit anti-american.
They lost the Vietnam War. What other wars have they lost? Many countries have lost a lot more wars than them.

Anyway the world's best army has to be the Nato peace keeping force which is there to help rather than cause problems and is a coalition of many countries.
oh god, this hurts me to say, but I agree with... um, catzsy. :eusa_sile

it is a bit anti-american here. you guys make the american army sound like total dimwits who stumbled their way to a fairly good reputation with the world and a helluva lot of power. america has done stuff right, or they wouldn't be in the power position they are today.

so, sorry if i sound anti-british in previous posts, but hey i didn't start it.

i have nothing against british people.

[BL!NKEY]

Yeah the US has never really lost a war.

They might have not won a few but it was not like the other country won and we had to surrender. It was more like we just left because it was not worth it. It did not effect us at home that much. In Iraq we might not have "won the war" but we have not lost it. Iraq has not taken us over.

[Virgin Mary]

no again, the reason was japan's attack on pearl harbor. that's why the americans almost single handedly beat japan. most of the US's problem was with japan.
All the US did was a drop a bomb on Japan, that really doesn't take a lot of skill.

[BL!NKEY]

All the US did was a drop a bomb on Japan, that really doesn't take a lot of skill.

Lol are you kidding.

Learn about island hopping and all the battles the US fought to get close to Japan.

They had to save Australia from the Japanese.

[Virgin Mary]

Lol are you kidding.

Learn about island hopping and all the battles the US fought to get close to Japan.

They had to save Australia from the Japanese.
Australia won the first battle again Japan, America lost most of its fights against Japan. It was only when the Australasian countries and Americans began fighting together did they really begin pushing the Japanese back.

[BL!NKEY]

Australia won the first battle again Japan, America lost most of its fights against Japan. It was only when the Australasian countries and Americans began fighting together did they really begin pushing the Japanese back.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

America won most of its fights against Japan. After pearl Harbor Japan had most of the Pacific.

Then after the Battle of Midway the USA was able to island hop closer and closer to mainland Japan.

Japanese soldiers stuck grenades down their throats and committed suicide in caves because they knew they didn't stand a chance against the Americans. They were too ashamed to surrender because that is how their culture was.

btw I am getting some of this info from

http://www.worldwar2history.info/Pacific/

Here is a quote


During this engagement, known as the Battle of the Philippine Sea, only three American ships were damaged. This victory paved the way for eventual success in the Marianas, and provided a demonstration of the interdependence of operations in the Southwest and Central Pacific Areas.

The last two major campaigns of the Pacific war -- Luzon and Okinawa -- were still to come. But Japan was essentially beaten. It was defenseless on the seas; its air force was gone; and its cities were being burned out by incendiary bombs.

[Virgin Mary]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

America won most of its fights against Japan. After pearl Harbor Japan had most of the Pacific.

Then after the Battle of Midway the USA was able to island hop closer and closer to mainland Japan.

Japanese soldiers stuck grenades down their throats and committed suicide in caves because they knew they didn't stand a chance against the Americans. They were too ashamed to surrender because that is how their culture was.

btw I am getting some of this info from

http://www.worldwar2history.info/Pacific/

Here is a quote
That's not what Wikipedia says, I hate sources that contradict each other. Oh well, the country with God on its side is always gonna win.

[BL!NKEY]

That's not what Wikipedia says, I hate sources that contradict each other. Oh well, the country with God on its side is always gonna win.

Interesting. Can you link me to the wikipedia page and quote you are referring to?

What side has god on its side in Israel?

[mmhmm.]

All the US did was a drop a bomb on Japan, that really doesn't take a lot of skill.
wha? let's try again... i said the reason why the US entered wwII was because japan attacked the united states, not the other way around. that happened later, dude :rolleyes:

and the US didnt just drop a bomb on japan, they did a lot of fighting before. ever heard of the term "island hopping" ? and after the war, general macarthur (of the US) went back to rebuild japan.

just because the atomic bomb is the most infamous part of the US's attack on japan, doesn't mean that's all they did.

before you say stuff, you should research it a bit you know. just in case.

[Catzsy]

wha? let's try again... i said the reason why the US entered wwII was because japan attacked the united states, not the other way around. that happened later, dude :rolleyes:

and the US didnt just drop a bomb on japan, they did a lot of fighting before. ever heard of the term "island hopping" ? and after the war, general macarthur (of the US) went back to rebuild japan.

just because the atomic bomb is the most infamous part of the US's attack on japan, doesn't mean that's all they did.

before you say stuff, you should research it a bit you know. just in case.

I am sure that there was a lot of soul searching before someone took the decision to drop the bomb and as you say the war had gone on for a long time
and it was felt that this was their only option. I am sure nobody was happy to do it.

[CrazyColaist]

Russia.

[HabboIsKrouts]

No chance in hell.. they have no navy, no airforce, no special forces, no artillery.

[Mentor]

err... no, president wilson wasn't going to enter the war after the attack on the passenger ship. it was when the germans tried to turn mexico against the US. check it, its true.
Can you soruce that, since woodrow himself blaimed the war on "militarism" and justifed the entery in to the war on that.

Although i find the boat a more likely reason due to the timeing.


wrong again buddy. i'm doing well in a.p. world history.
anywho, the british empire may have still been around, but it wasn't as dominant as it was centuries ago.

British empire peek: 1921
Centurie: 100 years
Date 2007.

That makes the british empires peek in 1921, 86 years ago.
86 is less than a 100. Hence its peek was less than ONE century ago, never lown centurys...

Plus, wow A.p, as much as a i really do cair, your educational status is pretty irrelvent to the debate and i dont belive anyone gives a ****, go boast somewhere else, this is for debates.


let's try this again. maybe read slower or something. people say that britain taught other countries everything they know. but these other countries have progressed a whole lot on their own since this time, hence the term "better". therefore, this fact can't be used as proof that britain has the most powerful army. k?
Well you can read slower if you need to, Birtish training is better than that in other countarys, if birtain did teach the other countarys (i dont know weather thats true or not) then they cannot have become BETTER, but instead worse.
Hence your use of the word better remains incorrect.

For the rest of the aurgument, stop straw maning, my point was a sepert issue to do with your wording, i made no mention as to the validty of the UK training other nations.




no again, the reason was japan's attack on pearl harbor. that's why the americans almost single handedly beat japan. most of the US's problem was with japan.
Thats nice, that explains why they attacked japan. BUT, thats not what i was talking about. Japan had almost NO involment with the main war, none of the other countarys were really involved in that conflict. America could have attacked japan quite easly without invadeing germany also. They orignaly encoraged hitlers dominace as it was putting communism down...


well, i learned that america supplied allied troops only before they entered the war. i can't picture america selling to germany and japan =/ however, i don't have any proof of which is correct.
IBM was helping the germans crack british codes, the US, not being involved in the war origanly held a neutral status, hence its industrial sector was selling to whom ever they liked. They also liked a powerful germany as a barrier against communism.


& we have to remember we were taught in different countries about the wars, therefore we have different aspects on what really happened.
Well birtain was right in the thick of both of them, and was involved in there entirty... america joined pretty late on in both wars. Although i accept its hard to get a non-bias source, America is obviously going to enphisise its roll and downplay others, as britain equaly is likely to do much the same thing emphisising what it did, and not what other countarys themselves did "/

[Virgin Mary]

What happened to my replies?

[BL!NKEY]

Can you soruce that, since woodrow himself blaimed the war on "militarism" and justifed the entery in to the war on that.

Although i find the boat a more likely reason due to the timeing.

I think he was refering to the zimmerman telegram which did have a large impact on USA's decision to enter the war if not the main reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram


What happened to my replies?

They are on the previous page

[HabboIsKrouts]

Hmm, threads dieing? :p

[JoeyK.]

America seems to be on top of the list but they have lost so many wars so how can this be.



.... Where in the hell do you get that? Lost how many wars exactly? ONE at the last count I think.

Wars/rebellions/conflicts in the history of the United States of America;

46 Won.
1 Lost.
2 In progress.

Here's a list for you...


The American Revolution
1775-1783

The Indian Wars
1775-1890

Shay's Rebellion
1786-1787
Rebellion
Anti-(state)Government Rebels vs. Massachusetts

The Whiskey Rebellion
1794
Rebellion
Anti-Tax Rebels in Western Pennsylvania

Quasi-War With France
1798-1800
Inter-State (Naval) War
France

Fries's Rebellion "The Hot Water War"
1799
Rebellion
Anti-Tax Rebels in Pennsylvania

The Barbary Wars
1800-1815
Inter-State War
The Barbary States
(Tripoli, Algiers & Morocco)

The War of 1812
1812-1815
Inter-State War
Great Britain
The Growing & Troubled Republic
Primary Name of Conflict Dates of Conflict
(U.S. Involvement Only)
Type of Conflict Primary Opponent(s)
of the United States

Mexican-American War
1846-1848
Inter-State War
Mexico

U.S. Slave Rebellions
1800-1865
Slave Rebellions
Various Slave groups

"Bleeding Kansas"
1855-1860
Civil War (state of Kansas)
Pro-Slavery vs. Anti-Slavery Kansans

Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry
1859
Rebellion
Anti-Slavery Rebels (Led by John Brown)

United States Civil War
1861-1865
Civil War
United States (The North)
vs.
The Confederate States (The South)


U.S. Intervention in Hawaiian Revolution
1893
Internal Rebellion & Foreign Intervention

The Spanish-American War
1898
Inter-State War

U.S. Intervention in Samoan Civil War
1898-1899
Civil War & Foreign Intervention

U.S.-Philippine War
1899-1902
Colonial War, War of Imperialism

Boxer Rebellion
1900
Internal Rebellion & Foreign Intervention
Chinese Government & "Boxer" Rebels

The Moro Wars
1901-1913
Colonial Wars
Philippine Muslim Rebels

U.S. Intervention in Panamanian Revolution
1903
Secessionist Revolution & Foreign Intervention
Colombia

The Banana Wars
1909-1933
Civil Wars & Foreign Intervention
Various Rebel Groups In Central America


U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz
1914
Inter-State War
Mexico

Pershing's Raid Into Mexico
1916-1917
Inter-State, Border War
Mexican Government & Mexican Rebels ("Bandits")

World War I
1917-1918 (American involvement only)
Inter-State War
Germany

Allied Intervention in Russian Civil War
1919-1921
Civil War & Foreign Intervention
Russian Bolshevik (Soviet) Government

World War II
1941-1945 (American involvement only)
Inter-State War
Germany, Japan & Italy

The Cold War
1945-1991
Global Inter-State Cold War
The Soviet Union & Communist China

The Korean War
1950-1953
Inter-State War
North Korea & China

The Second Indochina War "Vietnam War"
1956-1975
Civil War, Inter-State War
North Vietnam & South Vietnamese "Viet Cong" Rebels

U.S. Intervention in Lebanon
1958
Civil War & Foreign Intervention
No real foe for U.S. Troops landed to support Lebanon Gov.

Dominican Intervention
1965
Civil War & Foreign Intervention
Rebels in the Dominican Republic

The Mayaguez Rescue Operation
News Story 1975 (May 15)
Hostage Rescue & Inter-State Conflict
Khmer Rouge Guerrillas (the new government of Cambodia)

Iranian Hostage Rescue "Desert One" or "Operation Eagle Claw"
1980 (April 25)
Hostage Rescue & Inter-State Conflict
Iran

U.S. Libya Conflict
1981, 1986
Inter-State War
Libya

U.S. Intervention in Lebanon
1982-1984
Civil War,Foreign Intervention & Inter-State War
Syria & Various Muslim and Leftist Lebanese Militias

U.S. Invasion of Grenada
1983
Inter-State War
Marxist Grenadian Faction & Cuba

The Tanker War
"Operation Earnest Will"
1987-1988
Inter-State War
Iran

U.S. Invasion of Panama
1989
Inter-State War
Panama

Second Persian Gulf War "Operation Desert Storm"
1991
Inter-State War
Iraq

"No-Fly Zone" War
1991-2003
Inter-State War
Iraq

U.S. Intervention in Somalia
1992-1994
Civil War & Foreign Intervention
Various Somali Militias

NATO Intervention in Bosnia (Operation Deliberate Force) Summary
1994-1995
Civil War,Foreign Intervention & Inter-State War
Bosnian Serb Rebels

U.S. Occupation of Haiti
1994
Foreign Intervention
Haitian Government

U.S. Embassy bombings and strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (The bin Laden War)
August, 1998
Terrorist Conflict

"Desert Fox" Campaign (part of U.S./Iraq Conflict)
December, 1998
Inter-State War
Iraq

Kosovo War
1999
Civil War, Foreign Intervention & Inter-State War
Yugoslavia/Serbia

Attack on the USS Cole
October 12, 2000
Terrorist Conflict
Terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden

Attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
September 11, 2001
Terrorist Conflict
Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization

Afghanistan War (Operation Enduring Freedom)
October 7, 2001-Present
War against Terrorism
The Taliban and Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida organization

Third Persian Gulf War "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
March 19, 2003-Present
Inter-State War
Iraq

----------

The US is the most powerful militarily, with the most advanced warfare technology in the world, closely followed by China.

[Icarus]

In all honesty theres no way to say which is the best without a war between all of them. I am in NO way suggesting there should be but it's the only real way to decide. I would say that america has the biggest ready-to-use army.

China

I would say china is actually one of the least powerful it has a massive army but as the old saying goes "An Army Marches On It's Stomach" and statistics suggest that china would have problems recoursing enough food to feed it's armie during a war due to the fact that nobody would import to them and there normal food reserves are simply not high enough. [Hope that made a little bit of sense]

Britain

is probably top on tactics and the powerfulist army for it's side.
See now I would say we have the most powerful navy too but our controlling the seas has gone to pot as year after year they reduce our navy. I'm paticuarly destressed about this as I live near portsmouth and the HUGE naval base there is under threat of closing. Which means lots less money from tourism :(. Britain has won Most (By no means all) wars using the huge amount of allies we have. With america and most of western europe backing us up you can't really lose a war can you now?
I would also say we are the most technologically advanced army out there. We seem to have better rifles planes and all sorts of doohickys and gadgets to help the men on the battlefield.

N. Korea

Nobody actually knows the proper might of this army it's fought a few times but not recently so we don't know how the army has developed. I'm sure we all see the amazing dancing display things on BBC News occasionaly but theres no real evidence to how effective or strong they are in battle.

Russia

Not much of an army at all you might say? I reckon this could be the worlds next super power pretty soon. It has a population to rival China and America (Not together) and although it's hasn't been in a full on war in modern times the whole country is becoming much better developed economically and military. Theres no evidence but this could be the worlds strongest army.

Middle East

These guys put up a fight but theres no real "Material Army" more just small groups of rebels with guns. Sure they put up a fight when we invaded Iraq but it didn't exactly last long did it. Definately Not a threat. (As In able to start invading countries NOT surrounding it, such as America.)

America

In my opinion the current winners. The army is big well trained and extremely powerful. I would definately call U.S.A The current world Super Power. As it is probably the second most advanced army as well having huge man power and well trained men! So all hail America and what not.. I suppose (For now!)

[DiscoPat]

1) USA - no one can come close to the lone superpower of the world. and to top it off, the United States of America spent over $500 billion last year on their military alone. The USA has dominated the seas for over 60 years and if you can control the seas, you can control other countries economies with blockades and so forth. Obviously militaries don't get more experience, technologically advanced, and powerful than the mighty United States of America.

2) China - They have the world's 2nd largest gold reserves in the world. The ability to mobilize millions of men combined with the ability to reverse engineer allows China to stay a major threat in the world despite their isolationist leaders. China's economy is booming and they deserve this ranking over Russia which is on the opposite spectrum of China when it comes to economies. Their man power can't be matched. China has a closer relationship with the former USSR and Russia does have incredible knowledge when it comes to missle guidance systems.

3) Russia - Even though they are incredibly corrupt and have an economy that has seen better days, Russia's technology is top notch. They have an amazing amount of tanks, artillery, and machinery (can't be matched anywhere in the world) that can quickly be mobolized for a strong defensive force. Russia has an abundance of scientists and are the world's leader in weather modification. Overall, Russia lacks the professionalism needed to net a top 2 ranking.

4) UK - Cutting edge technology and a very close relationship with the United States tips the scales in favour of the UK when it comes to most militaries around the world. The UK's military tradition, resources, and professionalism are amongst the best in the world. The UK also has the best special forces in the world.

5) France - They have an abundance of technology and wealth both since the great war ended, they haven't spent serious money on their military like many other countries have. France does have ample indigenous technology.

6) Israel - Probably the best defensive force in the world. Israel has great special forces and a very nice ally in the United States which allows them to benefit by gaining technology as well as resources needed to wage war. Some of the best pilots in the world are from Israel.

7) Germany - Great technology, but they rank so low because since Hitler they have not made their military priority #1. However, given time they could amass an incredible military force. They have the economy needed to go hand and hand with a successful military. The military tradition is certainly there.

8) India - Man Power, economy, this rising power has it all. They are well balance in all areas including the Navy, which is rare in the day and age of anti-ship missiles. The only reason the Indians are so far down the list is because they are corrupted and lack OIL.

9) Turkey - One of the most powerful countries in their region, the Turks are very experienced fighting off Kurdish rebels and they have a very strong military tradition. Turkey, like Israel, would be one of the toughest countries in the world to invade due to their defensive capabilities. The country of Turkey has legendary leadership.

10) Pakistan - Pakistan has a large army as well as a booming economy. However, their lack of cutting edge technology coupled with the fact their Navy is medicore at best drops them to #10. However, they too are a fast riser.

[HabboIsKrouts]

.... Where in the hell do you get that? Lost how many wars exactly? ONE at the last count I think.

Wars/rebellions/conflicts in the history of the United States of America;

46 Won.
1 Lost.
2 In progress.

Here's a list for you...


The American Revolution
1775-1783

The Indian Wars
1775-1890

Shay's Rebellion
1786-1787
Rebellion
Anti-(state)Government Rebels vs. Massachusetts

The Whiskey Rebellion
1794
Rebellion
Anti-Tax Rebels in Western Pennsylvania

Quasi-War With France
1798-1800
Inter-State (Naval) War
France

Fries's Rebellion "The Hot Water War"
1799
Rebellion
Anti-Tax Rebels in Pennsylvania

The Barbary Wars
1800-1815
Inter-State War
The Barbary States
(Tripoli, Algiers & Morocco)

The War of 1812
1812-1815
Inter-State War
Great Britain
The Growing & Troubled Republic
Primary Name of Conflict Dates of Conflict
(U.S. Involvement Only)
Type of Conflict Primary Opponent(s)
of the United States

Mexican-American War
1846-1848
Inter-State War
Mexico

U.S. Slave Rebellions
1800-1865
Slave Rebellions
Various Slave groups

"Bleeding Kansas"
1855-1860
Civil War (state of Kansas)
Pro-Slavery vs. Anti-Slavery Kansans

Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry
1859
Rebellion
Anti-Slavery Rebels (Led by John Brown)

United States Civil War
1861-1865
Civil War
United States (The North)
vs.
The Confederate States (The South)


U.S. Intervention in Hawaiian Revolution
1893
Internal Rebellion & Foreign Intervention

The Spanish-American War
1898
Inter-State War

U.S. Intervention in Samoan Civil War
1898-1899
Civil War & Foreign Intervention

U.S.-Philippine War
1899-1902
Colonial War, War of Imperialism

Boxer Rebellion
1900
Internal Rebellion & Foreign Intervention
Chinese Government & "Boxer" Rebels

The Moro Wars
1901-1913
Colonial Wars
Philippine Muslim Rebels

U.S. Intervention in Panamanian Revolution
1903
Secessionist Revolution & Foreign Intervention
Colombia

The Banana Wars
1909-1933
Civil Wars & Foreign Intervention
Various Rebel Groups In Central America


U.S. Occupation of Vera Cruz
1914
Inter-State War
Mexico

Pershing's Raid Into Mexico
1916-1917
Inter-State, Border War
Mexican Government & Mexican Rebels ("Bandits")

World War I
1917-1918 (American involvement only)
Inter-State War
Germany

Allied Intervention in Russian Civil War
1919-1921
Civil War & Foreign Intervention
Russian Bolshevik (Soviet) Government

World War II
1941-1945 (American involvement only)
Inter-State War
Germany, Japan & Italy

The Cold War
1945-1991
Global Inter-State Cold War
The Soviet Union & Communist China

The Korean War
1950-1953
Inter-State War
North Korea & China

The Second Indochina War "Vietnam War"
1956-1975
Civil War, Inter-State War
North Vietnam & South Vietnamese "Viet Cong" Rebels

U.S. Intervention in Lebanon
1958
Civil War & Foreign Intervention
No real foe for U.S. Troops landed to support Lebanon Gov.

Dominican Intervention
1965
Civil War & Foreign Intervention
Rebels in the Dominican Republic

The Mayaguez Rescue Operation
News Story 1975 (May 15)
Hostage Rescue & Inter-State Conflict
Khmer Rouge Guerrillas (the new government of Cambodia)

Iranian Hostage Rescue "Desert One" or "Operation Eagle Claw"
1980 (April 25)
Hostage Rescue & Inter-State Conflict
Iran

U.S. Libya Conflict
1981, 1986
Inter-State War
Libya

U.S. Intervention in Lebanon
1982-1984
Civil War,Foreign Intervention & Inter-State War
Syria & Various Muslim and Leftist Lebanese Militias

U.S. Invasion of Grenada
1983
Inter-State War
Marxist Grenadian Faction & Cuba

The Tanker War
"Operation Earnest Will"
1987-1988
Inter-State War
Iran

U.S. Invasion of Panama
1989
Inter-State War
Panama

Second Persian Gulf War "Operation Desert Storm"
1991
Inter-State War
Iraq

"No-Fly Zone" War
1991-2003
Inter-State War
Iraq

U.S. Intervention in Somalia
1992-1994
Civil War & Foreign Intervention
Various Somali Militias

NATO Intervention in Bosnia (Operation Deliberate Force) Summary
1994-1995
Civil War,Foreign Intervention & Inter-State War
Bosnian Serb Rebels

U.S. Occupation of Haiti
1994
Foreign Intervention
Haitian Government

U.S. Embassy bombings and strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (The bin Laden War)
August, 1998
Terrorist Conflict

"Desert Fox" Campaign (part of U.S./Iraq Conflict)
December, 1998
Inter-State War
Iraq

Kosovo War
1999
Civil War, Foreign Intervention & Inter-State War
Yugoslavia/Serbia

Attack on the USS Cole
October 12, 2000
Terrorist Conflict
Terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden

Attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
September 11, 2001
Terrorist Conflict
Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization

Afghanistan War (Operation Enduring Freedom)
October 7, 2001-Present
War against Terrorism
The Taliban and Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida organization

Third Persian Gulf War "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
March 19, 2003-Present
Inter-State War
Iraq

----------

The US is the most powerful militarily, with the most advanced warfare technology in the world, closely followed by China.

Sorry but the british record betters that. :)


1) USA - no one can come close to the lone superpower of the world. and to top it off, the United States of America spent over $500 billion last year on their military alone. The USA has dominated the seas for over 60 years and if you can control the seas, you can control other countries economies with blockades and so forth. Obviously militaries don't get more experience, technologically advanced, and powerful than the mighty United States of America.

2) China - They have the world's 2nd largest gold reserves in the world. The ability to mobilize millions of men combined with the ability to reverse engineer allows China to stay a major threat in the world despite their isolationist leaders. China's economy is booming and they deserve this ranking over Russia which is on the opposite spectrum of China when it comes to economies. Their man power can't be matched. China has a closer relationship with the former USSR and Russia does have incredible knowledge when it comes to missle guidance systems.

3) Russia - Even though they are incredibly corrupt and have an economy that has seen better days, Russia's technology is top notch. They have an amazing amount of tanks, artillery, and machinery (can't be matched anywhere in the world) that can quickly be mobolized for a strong defensive force. Russia has an abundance of scientists and are the world's leader in weather modification. Overall, Russia lacks the professionalism needed to net a top 2 ranking.

4) UK - Cutting edge technology and a very close relationship with the United States tips the scales in favour of the UK when it comes to most militaries around the world. The UK's military tradition, resources, and professionalism are amongst the best in the world. The UK also has the best special forces in the world.

5) France - They have an abundance of technology and wealth both since the great war ended, they haven't spent serious money on their military like many other countries have. France does have ample indigenous technology.

Where the hell did u get that from? The french army is'nt as good enough to make it too fith, only there navy is good nothign else, The russian army is soo old that it could be the pope. And China has nothing but personel. The british should be 2nd then the Chinese.

[DiscoPat]

Sorry but the british record betters that. :)



Where the hell did u get that from? The french army is'nt as good enough to make it too fith, only there navy is good nothign else, The russian army is soo old that it could be the pope. And China has nothing but personel. The british should be 2nd then the Chinese.
[/color]

Err.. France isnt as weak as you think and you honestly think UK will beat china? lol

[OMGitsaROSS]

Taliban are quite powerful? They are holding back 2 of worlds "best" armies.

[HabboIsKrouts]

Err.. France isnt as weak as you think and you honestly think UK will beat china? lol

Rofl 1 bomb and it's all over?

[FlyingJesus]

Gothic Mafia on Habbo?

[devils_eye23]

if canada beat usa in a war why aint anyone voting for canada?

[DiscoPat]

Rofl 1 bomb and it's all over?
Thats the same in all countries, the idea is that you dont let the bomb drop and destroy it before it comes.

[HabboIsKrouts]

Thats the same in all countries, the idea is that you dont let the bomb drop and destroy it before it comes. only about 8 natiosn have nuclear bombs? :S

[DiscoPat]

u dont have to go nuclear to destroy a country

[HabboIsKrouts]

Depends what u mean by ''destory'' if its to destroy as in whipe it out, nuclear bombs is the only way, if u mean destroy by killing there morale and theyve lost there will too fite, then Bombs dropped on there homes/shops..

[DiscoPat]

Well, as a country wont wipe out another..

[Ichigo]

Depends what u mean by ''destory'' if its to destroy as in whipe it out, nuclear bombs is the only way, if u mean destroy by killing there morale and theyve lost there will too fite, then Bombs dropped on there homes/shops..


Several well chosen targets can easily 'wipe out' an entire country. Attacking industrial buildings, import and export shipments, anything economically beneficial towards the country and their healthcare would be a devastating move.

Russia's strict training make them an extremely tough armed force if nuclear warfare were out of the question. As with China and Korea.

If there were to be a war between two different armed forces you'd have to take into consideration the backing they'd have from other countries - since no country seems to be able to go to war with another these days without having someone else hold their hand, aswell as a number of other things, such as their industrial strength (i.e. how soon they can manufacture arms and ammunition) and a number of other things.

It wouldn't all depend on the army.

[Agnostic Bear]

Britain ftw

Considering America gets days off like thanksgiving and whatnot, we don't! We train 24/7 365, which makes us the best trained army in the world, also, it'd lead us to being the most powerful aswell.

MAD, this will cause general havoc when all the Americans come and start farting about with their attitude of "we are better than thou" then they apologise lmao.

Well, that and our abundance of hot water :P

[Ichigo]

Britain ftw

Considering America gets days off like thanksgiving and whatnot, we don't! We train 24/7 365, which makes us the best trained army in the world, also, it'd lead us to being the most powerful aswell.

MAD, this will cause general havoc when all the Americans come and start farting about with their attitude of "we are better than thou" then they apologise lmao.

Well, that and our abundance of hot water :P

Actually, the British army get leave at specific times of the year. The soldiers serving in Iraq at the moment go out for so many months and come back for so many months. It isn't a constant training regime.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Britain ftw

Considering America gets days off like thanksgiving and whatnot, we don't! We train 24/7 365, which makes us the best trained army in the world, also, it'd lead us to being the most powerful aswell.

MAD, this will cause general havoc when all the Americans come and start farting about with their attitude of "we are better than thou" then they apologise lmao.

Well, that and our abundance of hot water :P

Britain is weak, our army is nothing compared to China, Russia and the USA, so everyone should stop pretending our army is powerful and so on, because it's not.

It's our Trident which makes us powerful, remember in the Invasion Of Iraq our soliders had Green Uniforms in the desert?, Our troops had melting Boots and Guns that didn't work? oh and there not being enough Bullet Vests - Our army sure rocks :rolleyes:

[HabboIsKrouts]

Britain is weak, our army is nothing compared to China, Russia and the USA, so everyone should stop pretending our army is powerful and so on, because it's not.

It's our Trident which makes us powerful, remember in the Invasion Of Iraq our soliders had Green Uniforms in the desert?, Our troops had melting Boots and Guns that didn't work? oh and there not being enough Bullet Vests - Our army sure rocks :rolleyes:

*** are you on about? u obvioseley no nothing about warfare. I suggest you stop adding too this thread.


Britain has always had and always WILL have one of the best trained and technologically best armies in the world.

Even tho it is slightly underfunded by our Goverment, but hopefully that is going to change under the leadership of Gordan Brown.

[Virgin Mary]

By army I think the person meant like the military force against each other in a no-man's land etc., anyone can fire a nuke and destroy a country, it doesn't take much skill to do so.

[HabboIsKrouts]

he ment entire army, nuk's Navy Special forces, artillery, air force ect.

[its-me-sam]

Rget enjoy war to much to be the best army They just go over the top

[lScottl]

By army I think the person meant like the military force against each other in a no-man's land etc., anyone can fire a nuke and destroy a country, it doesn't take much skill to do so.
Yes but they wont because they'll get it just as bad.

[Frodo13.]

Id say the French Foreign Legion...

[HabboIsKrouts]

Id say the French Foreign Legion...

is that some kind of a sick joke?

[Frodo13.]

is that some kind of a sick joke?

No. Do you know how LARGE that army is? Its the largest in Europe, and attracts people from all around the world [as basiclly anyone can join]

They are also so strict and don't accept anything less then perfection in their recruits.

[HabboIsKrouts]

Ok, so your telling me theyre better than the British, American, Chinese, and Russian armies? yes?

Also, the British don't accept anything less than perfect in the army, they're EXTREMELY strict.

[Frodo13.]

Ok, so your telling me theyre better than the British, American, Chinese, and Russian armies? yes?

Also, the British don't accept anything less than perfect in the army, they're EXTREMELY strict.

This is all a matter of opinion. I think this is the most powerful army in the world. And yeah, I think they are better then many many other armys. You obviously dont want to accept that because they are French. You think the British army because you're British, and all the others based on size.

[HabboIsKrouts]

No. It's a known fact around the world, we have always been on of the best and always will be. Simple, people on this debate just don't get it though.

Your also British, so *REMOVED* you on about lol

Also if the french are the best, get us some solid proof? Accept that anyone can Join, tell us the ships, artillery, aircraft, ect tht they have, theyprobably have none? am i right?

Edited by Yoshimitsui (Forum Moderator): Please don't aviod the filter.