Strongest Army in the world?
- Thread starter K.I.L.E.R
- Start date
Vince said:
Some useless info on nuclear weapons to follow.....
The normal use of atomic weapon involves destruction produced via the nucleus binding energy.
Atomic weapons
Nuclear fission bomb AKA A-Bomb (A for Atomc).
Nuclear fusion bomb AKA Thermonuclear bomb AKA H-Bomb (H for Hydrogen), has an A-Bomb to iniatiate the fusion of heavy hydrogen.
(There are a number of other more exotic types, Neutron Bombs etc which are built on one of the type nuclear reactions)
A non-atomic weapon that uses a nuclear reaction is a
Dirty Bomb. Convential explosive that spreads radioactive material over the area.
In terms of damage
A-Bomb produce lots of radiation over its range. 10 KiloTons to 500 KiloTons. There are 2 main designs, Uranium and Plutonium based. Uranium is easier to obtain but makes less powerful weapons, Plutonium is also required for H-Bombs.
H-Bomb produces radiation mainly in the area of the internal A-Bomb, the real damage comes from the heat produced. Can wipe-out massive areas (10 miles+). Largest is believed to be a 100+ MegaTons (Offically the largest tested was 50 MegaTons).
Dirty Bomb is a slow killer. The convential explosiion is the only immediate damge but the release of radioactive particles will mean slow deaths (cancers, etc) and the land unusable for a long time.
Countries with A-Bombs
US, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan,
N.Korea (Only declared this month)
Israel (Unofficially - only country that won't declare them)
Countries with H-Bomb
US, Russia, Britain, France, China, India?, Israel?
A few countries have removed their nuclear capability, some ex-Soviet countrys gave them to Russia and S.Africa developed them and then destroyed them.
There is no chance of a terrorist getting hold of an A or H Bomb, but a Dirty bomb is a distinct possibility.There is already some evidence for terrorists cells having acquired radioactive materiial. One thing that worth noting, is that the actual bombs (with A-Bomb) aren't the really complex part. Producing weapons-grade Uranium or Plutonium is, most countries could produce weapons fairly quickly if they could obtain the fissionable material (hence the real concern with N.Korea).
I"m with you there except for the dirty bomb.
change "a nuclear reaction" to "radioactive material"
change "a nuclear reaction" to "radioactive material"
The reason the US friendly fire casualty count is so high is because the military is well equipped, but many of the people serving in it are still dumb. I'm sure they've got smart ones too, but we all know dumb people in real life...now just imagine them behind an AA missile launcher or a gun.
No, it wouldn't even come to that because they'd already have performed a pre-emptive strike, to defend themselves from the possibiltiy of an enemy pre-emptive strike.
As to the whole point of this thread, it's pretty much moot. None of the world's countries could take over the world militarily. In a straight up conventional military battle against the rest of the world, or even just a united Europe or Russia, US forces would suffer severe casualties. We might, possibly, win but even if we did we wouldn't have the resources to hold those countries. Of course, if we invaded Europe or Russia, we'd get nuked, so it's all a moot point (then we'd retaliate with nukes and it would be a big mess, after that I doubt anyone would be too concerned with fighting anymore...).
I don't think the US could conclusively "win" a war with China either. We just wouldn't be able to hold it (even if we sent our whole population over there we'd still be outnumbered 10 to 1!). I'm not even sure if an attack on North Korea would go that well, because even if we won, they'd do so much damage to South Korea and Japan that it would WRECK the world economy. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the US aristocracy is aware of those limitations.
DemoCoder said:
No, it wouldn't even come to that because they'd already have performed a pre-emptive strike, to defend themselves from the possibiltiy of an enemy pre-emptive strike.
As to the whole point of this thread, it's pretty much moot. None of the world's countries could take over the world militarily. In a straight up conventional military battle against the rest of the world, or even just a united Europe or Russia, US forces would suffer severe casualties. We might, possibly, win but even if we did we wouldn't have the resources to hold those countries. Of course, if we invaded Europe or Russia, we'd get nuked, so it's all a moot point (then we'd retaliate with nukes and it would be a big mess, after that I doubt anyone would be too concerned with fighting anymore...).
I don't think the US could conclusively "win" a war with China either. We just wouldn't be able to hold it (even if we sent our whole population over there we'd still be outnumbered 10 to 1!). I'm not even sure if an attack on North Korea would go that well, because even if we won, they'd do so much damage to South Korea and Japan that it would WRECK the world economy. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the US aristocracy is aware of those limitations.
I think its niave to claim that France had good relations with Germany pre-ww1/2. Its true that Hitler came close to worshiping France (along with the British to a certian extent) because of their common origins with Germany, but on a larger political level there was a great deal of animosity between the two nations. The French were very unforgiving of the Germans (Prussians? When did the unification of the HRE take place?) because of their victory over them during the Franko Prussian War, whereas the Germans viewed the French as being a large threat because of her elite forces.
The Chines military is rather large but I believe that it needs this to maintain its boarders and its governments order. If China were actually to put its military in action in some foreign country I believe that it is possible that the state would crumble believe it or not. So ironically it needs to maintain that large of an army to maintain its socialist control over the people. I might be wrong in this assumption though.
The move by western countries to smaller more well trained forces is a result of the realization that a conventional/tactical technoligically superior military(airforce/army/navy.) is more flexible, practical and realistic over a wave of human bodies. Which is what the Chines army would turn into if it were up against say the US military in a conventional war. But while I am sure China knows this it still holds on to their million + sized army. The idea that any country in the world would be able to take over the world by use of military force is ridiculous IMO.
While the discussion topic is military force and whom has the larger and the like I would digress on this topic a bit and go to economic power. China is the fastest growing market in the world averaging 10% + growth a year and with a population over 1 billion it represents a massive market. The potential of that market is a powerful thing indeed considerably more powerful then its military.
The irony of all of this is that China would have a significantly easier time in spreading the language of Mandarin by use of economics rather then by use of military action via trade or willingness to trade. I believe a market of that size would indeed reinvigorate the entire world economy fantastically. China though has a massive obstacle before it ever becomes the worlds number one superpower.....its own government and protectionist one sided trade mentality where it is dumping their products in the west but refuses in many cases to allow the sale of foreign goods within its boarders. The trade deficit with China grows yet and the good will of western nations on this is beginning to wear thin.
The Chines government holds onto its Marxist roots but has adopted some rather capitalistic economic measures. Surely this is the embodiment of modern socialism or no? Chinas government seems to be somewhat of two minds here. They believe that they can keep their socialist totalitarian dictatorship and have their capitalistic pie at the same time. I suggest that this government and the economy that it runs.(I might add this only happens in a socialist state.) is in for a real surprise.
Even though China has adopted some fantastic capitalist economic reform it is due for a fall. Consider that massive foreign money has been invested in the country while Chinas leadership still holds onto outdated socialist mentalities, I don't know about you but if I had money invested there I would most certainly be nervous about that governments intensions. In other words there could be a massive collapse in their economy should foreign investment suddenly decide to pull its economic interests .... as a result of their governments unwillingness to change or worse take charge of this investment in some way, which isn't BTW an unusual sort of thing for a socialist government to want to do. This would be a massive tragity for the Chines public but not as a result of the investors pulling their own investments but rather the Chinese governments willingness to take what is not theirs.. Again it can't be stressed more the Chinese government still holds on to its socialist principles and this is very much in contrast to what we see going on in their economy.
What China ought to do for the benefit of its people, economy, foreign investors indeed the world economy is adopt a democratic government and throw out their left wing notions and values of the Socialist utopian mindset. Instead though what we are seeing is some sort of left wing mindset in a sort of schizophrenic mentality. If the Chinese government continues on their current path they are taking they may find that their current economic boom may turn into a bursting bubble.
The move by western countries to smaller more well trained forces is a result of the realization that a conventional/tactical technoligically superior military(airforce/army/navy.) is more flexible, practical and realistic over a wave of human bodies. Which is what the Chines army would turn into if it were up against say the US military in a conventional war. But while I am sure China knows this it still holds on to their million + sized army. The idea that any country in the world would be able to take over the world by use of military force is ridiculous IMO.
While the discussion topic is military force and whom has the larger and the like I would digress on this topic a bit and go to economic power. China is the fastest growing market in the world averaging 10% + growth a year and with a population over 1 billion it represents a massive market. The potential of that market is a powerful thing indeed considerably more powerful then its military.
The irony of all of this is that China would have a significantly easier time in spreading the language of Mandarin by use of economics rather then by use of military action via trade or willingness to trade. I believe a market of that size would indeed reinvigorate the entire world economy fantastically. China though has a massive obstacle before it ever becomes the worlds number one superpower.....its own government and protectionist one sided trade mentality where it is dumping their products in the west but refuses in many cases to allow the sale of foreign goods within its boarders. The trade deficit with China grows yet and the good will of western nations on this is beginning to wear thin.
The Chines government holds onto its Marxist roots but has adopted some rather capitalistic economic measures. Surely this is the embodiment of modern socialism or no? Chinas government seems to be somewhat of two minds here. They believe that they can keep their socialist totalitarian dictatorship and have their capitalistic pie at the same time. I suggest that this government and the economy that it runs.(I might add this only happens in a socialist state.) is in for a real surprise.
Even though China has adopted some fantastic capitalist economic reform it is due for a fall. Consider that massive foreign money has been invested in the country while Chinas leadership still holds onto outdated socialist mentalities, I don't know about you but if I had money invested there I would most certainly be nervous about that governments intensions. In other words there could be a massive collapse in their economy should foreign investment suddenly decide to pull its economic interests .... as a result of their governments unwillingness to change or worse take charge of this investment in some way, which isn't BTW an unusual sort of thing for a socialist government to want to do. This would be a massive tragity for the Chines public but not as a result of the investors pulling their own investments but rather the Chinese governments willingness to take what is not theirs.. Again it can't be stressed more the Chinese government still holds on to its socialist principles and this is very much in contrast to what we see going on in their economy.
What China ought to do for the benefit of its people, economy, foreign investors indeed the world economy is adopt a democratic government and throw out their left wing notions and values of the Socialist utopian mindset. Instead though what we are seeing is some sort of left wing mindset in a sort of schizophrenic mentality. If the Chinese government continues on their current path they are taking they may find that their current economic boom may turn into a bursting bubble.
I think what makes US army so powerful is obviously the tech superiority and also the awsome air support they get (B1/2/B52/f15/16/14/16/111/Apaches/A-10 Thunderbolts/Ac-130 Gunships etc).....these air weapons pretty much destroy enimies' fighting capability even before the real fight begins....
US army can be defeated if these two factors can be rendered ineffective....if US army is forced to fight in difficult terrains like mountains, dense forests and crowded cities, the air support will not be effective and you know what happened in Vietnam...!
US army can be defeated if these two factors can be rendered ineffective....if US army is forced to fight in difficult terrains like mountains, dense forests and crowded cities, the air support will not be effective and you know what happened in Vietnam...!
Deepak said:
I would suggest to you that the air power particularly with the "smart bomb" technology is still very effective in environments that traditionally negate air power. Certainly the effectiveness and accuracy is degraded but in mountains it seems the Taleban had few places they could hide, often I would think that their caves would become tombs. I think that the US military is probably more effective in a forested terrain as a result of their experience in Vietnam then any other military would be. So while their effectiveness is degrated ... so are everyone elses. Crowded cities are the worst environment particularly if you are worried about civilian deaths. If they are not worried about civilian deaths (a very unlikely prospect.) then the use of low yield nuclear weapons would prove to be very effective killing all life forms in the area while leaving the collateral (eg building etc) intact. The US definitely has the most technological advanced military and it is adaptable/well trained/effective beyond most any other military in the world in my humble opinion. I expect this trend to continue and those whom are the stated enemies of the US ought to take note of this.
I'd also class a Neutron Bomb as a 'Dirty Bomb', as its designed to spread radioactive material over a small area in a battle field, to take out troops and tank crews etc. In fact, the last vehicle you want to be in after a Neutron Bomb hits is an M1-A1 tank with its depleted uranium armour, as this undergos fast fission and generates additional neutrons...
I'd also suggest that the US military could and does very well hold its own on the ground, with our without preliminary air strikes. To assume that US infantry forces are anything BUT clearly superior as a whole to any other infantry force on the planet is ignorant. Just because we use air power the way we have up till now doesn't mean the outcome wouldn't have been 100% the same, save for a few more US casualties.
-Chris
-Chris
Silent_One
Newcomer
Deepak wrote:
An interesting article from the March/ April 2003 Foreign Affairs Magazine "Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare" writes that you both are wrong.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030...le/afghanistan-and-the-future-of-warfare.html
(Unfortunatly the entire article is not available for FREE, but you can buy it!)
Sabastian wrote:
An interesting article from the March/ April 2003 Foreign Affairs Magazine "Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare" writes that you both are wrong.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030...le/afghanistan-and-the-future-of-warfare.html
(Unfortunatly the entire article is not available for FREE, but you can buy it!)
Silent_One, whom has the greater chance of success? A force of US ground and air in the mountains and accross on the other side on another mountain an equal force of Taliban terrorist? lol.... First off the only way that the Taliban terrorist would have a chance, to live that is, is if they were to run. No doubt some of them would die in this process even. Game over. Now in the valley set up a provisional government in the city with their own police and military. Now the terrorist are fighting their own people. The point is there is no need to kill them all at once, just destroy their power base and make them a fringe movement that while is a pest is not a threat to the new more credible government.
I realize that this is rather simplified but in Afganistan the massive war effort is over. Now they can harass and attack the terrorist with small groups of speacial forces that are bolstered by the new governments military and police.
All your base are belong to us... lol.
I realize that this is rather simplified but in Afganistan the massive war effort is over. Now they can harass and attack the terrorist with small groups of speacial forces that are bolstered by the new governments military and police.
All your base are belong to us... lol.
Deepak said:
What you are basically saying is "US army is rendered ineffective if they can't use planes and tanks and instead must fight with sticks and stones"
#1 the US won every major land battle in vietnam. The war was lost to politics. For example, in the Tet Offensive, US troops were fighting in close quarters against the communists in small cities and towns, and yet the result was 75,000 dead Vietcong vs 11,000 dead Americans (and Australians and Canadians too). Many of the troops were fresh out of boot-camp and conscripts, not the highly professional army of today. Somalia is an example of the kill ratios US troops, even without pre-softening up aircover enjoy.
#2 Forests would no longer provide any cover due to the ubiquitous existence of triple-spectrum imaging on many US weapons (FLIR, thermal, and SAR). Just like in Iraq, the dust storm posed no problem for targeting, and forests aren't going to stop predators, global hawks, JSTARs, M1A2 tanks, Bradleys, and Apaches etc from seeing enemy forces moving within them. Have you never seen COPS on TV chasing a suspect through a dense forest at night with IR from a heli? Did you not see the AC-130 video pummeling Afghanistan caves that have heat signatures?
The best thing the enemy could do to try and obscure themselves from the US is to set their forests or cities on fire and hide amongst the fire. Smoke won't obscure. US systems are designed to cut through battlefield smoke. You need special smoke grenades with phosphors in them to mask your thermal signature.
#3 US has 2 divisions that train extensively for mountain and urban combat. While urban and mountain combat does negate some of the US advantages, but there is no substitute for experience and training, and most other countries don't have anything comparable to MOUT McKenna. Training and tactics can negate the Urban advantage, the Israelis proved that. How often do you hear of the Israelis taking casualities when invading highly hostile areas? The Israelis have perfected the art of assaulting buildings (not the bulldozing tactic) by blowing holes in walls and never exposing themselves to fire on the streets.
#4 future weaponry will remove some of the disadvantages. The land warrior system's OICW provides a gun that can look around corners and airbust bullets to laser range-finding precision. This lets you hit enemy without exposing any part of your body and clear a room with a single bullet. US military is already experimenting with "deployable turrets" which are remote controlled little robots with cameras and guns that they can send down narrow streets to clear snipers. They already have *in operational use* robots which they can send into rooms before they clear them. And let's not even talk about all the mini-/micro-UAVs being designed for urban and difficult terrain warfare. I also count as potentially useful, the microwave "stun" gun used for crowd control which be useful on a mini-UAV or robot to subdue a room with mixed civilians and enemy in urban setting.
#5 Iraq is a lesson that hiding in an urban environment won't save you. American precision airpower + marines took Baghdad with minimal casualties. According to your theory Deepak, Iraqis had huge advantages in their cities, and the Dust storm was worse than any forest, yet the American defeat, even a minor one, didn't materialize.
This is all reminiscent of the failed military analyses coming out of Russia and China on what the US weakness is and how to defeat the US. The Russians take their experience in Afghanistan and Checnya and map it to the US in Vietnam. Russian generals and Russian newspaper editorials proudly proclaim US coming defeat. I wonder what's happening behind the scenes when these analyses are shown wrong, and whenever US equipment comes up against Russian equipment, Russian equipment gets obliterated.
Tahir said:
If another cold war started between the US and Russia (highly unlikely and I am not sure as to why this would happen but.....) I think they would loose from the get go on spending. The US only spends 2-3% of its GDP on millitary spending today, imagine what their military would look like if they continued spending like they did during the cold war. Sometimes upwards of 100 billion dollars more then they already do. Currently they spend 300 billion. Here is the totals spent ever sence 1946.
U.S. Military Spending, 1946–2002 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html
I also read that re China :
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-465es.html
Here is the analysis..
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa465.pdf