Top 4 most powerful military's

reply to post by Uk_United


Your US stats also do not include the 3700 Navy aircraft. I'm not sure if that includes the Marine Corps. The Department of the Navy has always had more aircraft than the Air Force. Not a well known fact.

reply to post by FredT


china might have large military but what good is that if you go to war with a country who wipes 600k strong military while losing maybe 20 troops in a mater of hours - and yes the body count in the iraq war was 600k plus
that comes from years of honing the art of war to a science - so numbers realy do not have weight in a war who is capable of exterminating on a wholesale level - capish

HAPPY 3rd ANNIVERSARY TO THIS THREAD!!!!!



Long time no see.... :w:

u have to take into account that of their nuclear strengths as well. and maybe allies... because taking on the brits would mean takin on the yanks and vise verse

Yes the UK has a very good special forces and yes France is over rated
but here is my list this is buy Power Out Put and you always have to consider alliances if the UK were ever attacked you know the USA would be there with everything they got and that goes with Isreal and u also have to consider the Nuclear side of things and the Counter measures couse the us does have a missle defence system i dont know if its full proof but it does make a country if it ever came down to it if they would attack with icbms or not couse if the defence system your not Guaranteed to have a hit or not unlike countriees that dont have them but here is my list if it came down to war who would be the top

1 USA
2 UK (the USA would help if they needed it)
3 China
4 Russia
5 Isreal
6 France
Thats my list it is up to argument this is also my list for tech a country has

1 USA
2 UK
3 Isreal (USA gives them everything)
4 Russia
5 France
6 China
again this is up to debate but this is my list
but whoever reads this need to see the logic in it china may have allot of peaple but it is really difficult to supply all those units especially at long ranges, and USA has disrupting a enemies comunication down to a art,
this is my list for air force

1 USA
2 UK
3 Russia
4 Isreal
5 China
6 France

this one im standing firm on couse u have to reallize not only number of planes but the tech invuled in it and now stealth the USA has the most technological jet in the world (the F-22) and it still is being fined tuned and is not completely done the F-35 is also a very good plane but the F-35 is a stike fighter not used as a Air to Air fighter (although it can) and it is also less stealthy then the F-22 so i stand firm on that one

reply to post by Uk_United


One of the more intelligent posts I read on relative military power. Most Americans would be stunned to know just how few conventional trigger-pullers we have on active duty. Of a military force of approximately 1.6 million fewer than a dozen divisions comprise our entire infantry force. In the Marine Corps we called it the "teeth-to-tail" ratio, i.e. the number of support troops relative to the number of combat troops. In the Corps (back in my day) it was 8 to 1 and the Army had a much worse ratio. Count it up: there are 173,000 Marines and 500,000 Army troops. Divide the Marines by eight and the soldiers by 12 and see how many actual killers we can put into a conventional or low-intensity war where our Boomers, Stealths, and Space-Based Death Rays (just kidding about that one) are useless as weapons. When you fight on the other guy's dirt and he thinks you are the bad guy you better be prepared to kill them in genocidal numbers or you will not "win" the war against an enemy who is a "true believer" in either his cause or in right of self-determination. I once sat in on a lecture at the Naval Special Warfare Center at Little Creek and heard a Naval Intelligence officer tell about the conversation that had intercepted between two Soviet Union general officers. They were discussing the impossiblity of conventional war with America on U.S. soil. Their strategic planners had concluded that any war plans along those lines were worthless. Their rationale? They believed the guerrilla war would last 100 years and it just wasn't worth it. Ten years was their strategic limit on foreign soil. Many years later when they pulled out of Afghanistan (after 10 years) it became evident that policy was still in effect. Thanks to any who take the time to plow through this.
Old Spook

what rubbish r u writing. have u ever been to russia or china and had a first hand experience of their military strength?

reply to post by Uk_United


My dear it seems quite a funny about China, because as per my knowledge china has developed on of the best fighter jets in the world i.e, F 7 P and J F 17 thunder!!

China is has the 2nd powerful military after USA.

I hear Australia tops your list, like it should.

Our 10 men, in 2 iron fishing boats, shooting with 1 shared rifle.

Gotta love isolation.

reply to post by ulshadow


If he have served in the mentioned army then I will take his word for it.
He have probably seen them in action/ up close.

reply to post by SiberianTiger


I agree. Russian military is extremely powerful with advanced rocketing techology and having one of the best planes in the world. Their MiGs are powerful and perhaps one of the best and most versatile planes in the world, therefore it is constantly used in the military.

I think that China is being overestimated here. Yes, China has the largest army, but it lacks any offensive capabilities. It doesn't have an airforce capable of offensive war or even the ability to support troops outside of China and maybe SE Asia. The US, the UK, and France are the only countires with true worldwide power projection, and the U.S. is the only one with an offensive power projection strong enough to defeat a regional power. I mean, look at the navies of these countries. Russia-no real aircraft carriers, a severely reduced nuclear sub force, its navy is suffiecient for defense, but nothing more. France has some real blue water projection with a modern and relatively large navy. The UK is the same but a little more so. I think even Austrialia has an aircraft carrier that gives it some blue water when necessary, but I'm not sure. Then you have the U.S., with a navy larger than the next 17 largest combined (not to mention also more advanced than most) (I got this from one of the sources to a wikipedia article). That isn't even to mention that one Nimitz class carrier is vastly superior to any other in the world, and the US has 10. So considering China's lack of offensive ability and naval strength, and idea that China could invade the U.S. is preposterous.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


While the more Modern Migs are powerful aircraft, war cannot be won from the air alone. Russias tanks have been shown to be woefully deficient in all aspect except for numbers. That is the Russian concept, attack en mass. So that being said it takes between 5-10 tanks to equal one Nato design.

reply to post by Uk_United


i do not think the uk is too high but it depends on whitch way its worked out if you go by economy or production then yes it may not be so high but in know way should the uk be ignored as a super power. if you count the history and the class of the individual soldier then theres know reason why it shouldnt be top! weapons are only as good as the person using them and if history has taught us anything its that numbers count for nothing if you have a well drilled army. the RAF is the finest air force in the world it has proved it time and time again, ROYLE NAVY has also proved itself in ww1-ww2 . the united kingdom is the finest military in the world may not be the biggest but i'd put it against any other army with an expectation of victory! size dont matter. anyway its not like it matters when everyone is hiding behind the cowardly nuke! (world destroyer) (scumbags solution to a quick victory) (the cowards way outta of a battle they carnt win) just my opinion.

if ww3 ever did break out man kind would not servive because of nukes n it would be america to be the first to fire.