[Bodah]

tritium wrote:

Is the USA the most powerful country in the world?? Militarily speaking, not economically.

If they would of focused on Afghanistan isntead of Iraq they would be.

For now I think Israel holds that title.

[Banff]

Isn't the Klingons the most powerful military ?
and per capita Germany being the most powerful army ,
and economicly China because of their power to exploit their people for the benefit of wealthy people world wide so americans don't have to pay union wages ?
In the air the US is most powerful but that will be quickly repaired by countries collectively mounting surface to air stations and supplying the average citizen with electronic goggles to launch the weapons . Hopefully Walmart will carry them soon
Nukes ? well more countries need them- Canada needs 10 pointed at every state so we only need 500 of them to make Mr.Canada Happy .

[grainfedprairieboy]

Schleihauf wrote:

I don't follow the war in Iraq so its a mystery to me why they aren't winning.

I reckon for the exact same reason we have issues in Afghanistan: The MSM catering to liberal pussies back home.

Let me explain. In Afghanistan; we know that as soon as Canadian soldiers leave a village Timmy Taliban will come waltzing in to harass the villagers, maybe make some threats and if the mood strikes him he will murder someone as an example of why it is an affront to Allah, Islam and Afghanistan itself, to cooperate with the Canadians. We know it is going to happen as every time we leave Timmy T is all over them like ugly on a bowling shoe. Why don't we leave a couple of guys behind to lie and wait? One reason and that is Canadian public can't stomach it.

And spare the "they'll catch on" defence. This is one of a 1000 real proactive things we could be doing but refuse. My discussions with American soldiers lead me to believe they are also hamstrung by liberals.

[SprCForr]

Quote:

The only reason why the Soviet Union was considered really a superpower is it was ideologically different and independent of United States capital, which strengthened it’s position against it.

Incorrect. The USSR was a superpower for the same reason the US still is. They could project their military power anywhere in the world.

[Clogeroo]

Quote:

Incorrect. The USSR was a superpower for the same reason the US still is. They could project their military power anywhere in the world.

I meant aside from that. They could take out the U.S. with little consequence China on the other hand needs the Americans so it is unlikely they will be planning on sending a missile to Washington anytime soon.

[GreatBriton]

Quote:

the EU has been creating a more advanced military than the United States.

Don't make me laugh.

The United States spends over twice the amount that the EU (27 countries) spends on defence.

United States - $522,000,000,000
European Union - $217,805,900,000
----------------

The world's biggest defence spenders by country

United States - $522,000,000,000
China - $70,480,000,000
Britain - $60,388,574,400
France - $45,000,000,000 (Including the police force)
Japan - $44,310,000,000
Germany - $34,100,000,000
Italy - $28,182,800,000

wikipedia.org

[GreatBriton]

Bodah wrote:

tritium wrote:

Is the USA the most powerful country in the world?? Militarily speaking, not economically.

If they would of focused on Afghanistan isntead of Iraq they would be.

For now I think Israel holds that title.

The United States is BY FAR the most powerful country in the world.

It spends over half a TRILLION dollars each year on defence, which about as much as the next 13 countries combined.

The United States Airforce has 9000, by far the largest in the world. The next largest has around 4000. Israel's airforce, in comparison, has 900 aircraft. (Although the current US Airforce is small compared to the RAF at the end of World War I which has 23,000 aircraft).

The United States Navy has around 50% of the total world's naval power. It rules the seas almost in the way that Britain did a century ago.

And how powerful a nation is doesn't really just depend on the size of its military. Factors such as quality, experience and power projection also come into it.

Taking these into account, the three most powerful nations today are the US, Britain and France in that order. These are the ONLY three countries that can project any sizeable military force on the planet and of these three only the US and the UK have any experience within the last twenty years of deploying divisional sized forces.

As for saying Israel is the most powerful country is just being a bit silly.

Here's what a poster wrote on strategypage.com regarding Israel and is quoting another poster -



“Big countrys naturally have greater power projections”

The only nations which can project any sizeable force on the planet are these and in this order; USA, UK, France. Of which only the US and the UK have any experience within the last twenty years of deploying divisional sized forces. This gives both of these nations a great advantage in experience, as the logistical nightmare of say supporting the 25,000 1st UK Armoured in Iraq (with all its logistical support units) and being able to supply it, is of significant advantage. Not to mention the general war fighting with a large unit, albeit the US have controlled Corps levels recently (VII Corps), yet even just commanding and controlling a single division on a rapid advance is an extremely difficult task. You show your total lack of military knowledge, and you can thank me later for exposing it here.

“The Israelis trounce the Brits due to having an equivalent number of nukes and a superior army/air force. Also counting in the fact that a surface fleet matters little in an all out nuke war.”

Rubbish. In terms of single unit quality, then the overall high quality training, professional status and greater experience in ALL types of warfare, means that the British Squadie is largely regarded as one of the best if not THE best in the world. In terms of mission, then any comparison is pointless. The IDF is a solely defensive organisation, while the British Army is a solely expeditionary one, with the possible exception of the 1st UK Armoured being a permanent unit in the NATO ARRAC (along with 1st US Armoured). Therefore the force structure is total different. So any comparison would have to run along the lines of, how well can they defend and attack respectively? Britain can attack anybody globally. Israel can project within a specific ark in its region. In defensive terms, the large number of Israeli interceptors, and the IAF in particular act as its deterrent. While the Royal Navy is Britain’s. Both are impregnable. In terms of Nuclear terms, the British delivery vehicle far exceeds that of the Israeli. Any sub launched Jericho from a Dolphin SSK has a limited range, due to the necessity of its enemies. The Trident II, located on the Royal Navy Vanguard class (third largest SSBN) has a strike range of up to 12,000km, while the MIRV its self has a 16 war head capacity. However, Israel could have produced enough plutonium for a 100 nuclear weapons, yet not 200. Therefore, Britain has the larger stockpile. link China its self has a very small nuclear arsenal. Possibly 200-300, a total that’s dwarfed by NATO or the Russian Federation. China’s largest ICBM, has a similar range, however, this particular ICMB was tested in 1980, and thus lacks the decoy technology of say the current SLBM of equal range. Not to forget the NATO MIRV spread of warheads. Without blabbering on, China holds no advantage over US, UK, Russia and when the M51 comes into service, France.

“Germany/Italy is off the list. No power projection and no nukes.”

By that logic China is off the list. Pakistan is off the list. India is off the list. Russia is off the list. Israel is off the list. “Australia/Canada is off for having no nukes and stamina(low population).” North Korea is off the list; as I’d call not being able to feed your people in “relative” peace time, lacking stamina.

Even China, the world's largest nation, wouldn't be able to attack Britain without nukes -

The UK's projection capabilitis currently stand at :- 480 Logistical and Support Ships, 129 Royal Naval Ships (33 major surface combatants, 15 SSN/SSBNs) [[the 2nd-most powerful naval force on the planet], 83 Large Transport Aircraft, 370 Transport Helicopters. We also have many bases and friendly nations who can provide bases around the world. So in theory we could transport our entire military force if we needed. This consists of around 386,468 Personnel + 170,000 liable to recall 5000 Armoured vehicles 1000 Artillery pieces (approx) 300 Air defence systems (approx) 400 Attack helicopters 362 Combat aircraft 111 Training aircraft w/ combat capability 81 Minor surface combatant ships 33 Major surface combatant ships 11 SSNs 28 Maritime, fixed wing combat aircraft 11 AEW Helicopters 7 Fixed wing AEW/AWACS 4 SSBNs With this comes significant stand off weaponry allowing the UK to strike targets out of reach of counter attacks. So if it came to the crunch the UK is very capable of taking on large or equal apponants if needed. However in the modern world this does not happen very often (it hasn't happened since Korea) and is never likley to happen where one nation goes it alone. On the other hand if something catastrophic did happen then only the US, UK and France would have any capability to do anything about it. Just to reiterate ad's question, how is China able to attack the UK without nuclear weapons?

strategypage.com

[TheFoundersIntent]

A single US nuclear submarine is the 3rd most powerful "nation" on Earth.

Any questions?

[-Mario-]

TheFoundersIntent wrote:

A single US nuclear submarine is the 3rd most powerful "nation" on Earth.

Any questions?

You need to do some reading on China's Military...

[BartSimpson]

Power without the will or resolve to use it is not power at all.

I voted no.

We've lost 3,000 people in Iraq over the course of four years and the media and a lot of other people consider that to constitute a defeat.

Never mind that we lose more people in traffic accidents every month.

Then I also have to wonder if we'd have the nerve to take on another World War if it came about.

We can't stomach the loss of 3,000 troops over four years so I wonder what would happen were we faced with another Normandy, Iwo Jima, Saipan, Guadalcanal, Anzio, Battle of the Bulge, or etc?

We lost 1,800 troops just training for the Normandy invasion.

[TheFoundersIntent]

Liberals are the bane of liberty. How ironic those two words are so similar.

[TheFoundersIntent]

-Mario- wrote:

TheFoundersIntent wrote:

A single US nuclear submarine is the 3rd most powerful "nation" on Earth.

Any questions?

You need to do some reading on China's Military...

No I don't.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson wrote:

Power without the will or resolve to use it is not power at all.

I voted no.

We've lost 3,000 people in Iraq over the course of four years and the media and a lot of other people consider that to constitute a defeat.

Never mind that we lose more people in traffic accidents every month.

Then I also have to wonder if we'd have the nerve to take on another World War if it came about.

We can't stomach the loss of 3,000 troops over four years so I wonder what would happen were we faced with another Normandy, Iwo Jima, Saipan, Guadalcanal, Anzio, Battle of the Bulge, or etc?

We lost 1,800 troops just training for the Normandy invasion.

That was exactly what I was thinking. The USA is (unfortunately) beginning to look a lot like Rome, where eventually, the nation was unwilling to defend itself. I don't see the US employing mercenaries in the Roman fashion, but if the populace is unwilling to join the armed forces, then the result is the same.

Who will defend the US in the future? Gen Y with its large proportion of obese children? Increasingly squeamish adults?

This is the cycle of empire. A young powerful nation appears, uses its advantages to dominate its region (or the world) and eventually, the price of staying on top becomes too high for its citizens. It happened to the Romans, the Spanish, the British and it will happen to the Americans.

The only real question is are we at that point now, or will it happen in a generation or two?

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga wrote:

The only real question is are we at that point now, or will it happen in a generation or two?

The proof is in the pudding - we're there now.

[Clogeroo]

Quote:

The proof is in the pudding - we're there now.

Think so? I think your country is more split between isolationism and stepping back to imperialism and stepping forward. Your country seems 50-50 on these matters at least to me. Although this Iraq War might have turned some people off from the world. What do you think your country should be Bart American Imperialists or Isolationists?