If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Question about the "power" of the Military
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Bare in mind, i do not support wars, as in any war. I dont support the world leaders of this time, and i do not support Weapons of man.
But.........I was just wondering, do the "United States" have the most strongest military force on the earth?
I was thinking and from the looks of it, N.Korean looks to be the strongest, i was also thinking that the USA Is the most powerful, even with the 900 and more deaths of soldiers, i am guessing its like a billion usa soliders in the military, right?
Im confused......
But.........I was just wondering, do the "United States" have the most strongest military force on the earth?
I was thinking and from the looks of it, N.Korean looks to be the strongest, i was also thinking that the USA Is the most powerful, even with the 900 and more deaths of soldiers, i am guessing its like a billion usa soliders in the military, right?
Im confused......
0
Comments
I don't even think they have a population of a billion let alone a billion in the military!
The USA may have the largest standing army, but could be challenged by the Chinese forces. But the United Kingdom has the most highly trained and effective fighting force on the planet at this time.
Wars aren't fun, but I'm proud of the standards that the RAF, Army and Navy generally keep.
lol, yeah, is a shame that...
I don't understand how the US insist on shooting at us though...
Theyve got the tech, the cash, the manpower, the bases, the influence.
Hell, one US aircraft carrier battle group could probably defeat all of Europes navies combined in a battle.
As for China, their equipment is antiquated Soviet era stuff. Number of troops does not make up for being 50 years behind technologically these days.
with a few diseases thrown in ...it's just so fucking passe this guns and bullets stuff.
What's this, the Right Honorable Moroccan Roll and Geoffrey Hoon seeing eye to eye on an issue?
Or am I yet another person to misinterpret the distinct brand of humour/sarcasm which we all love?
Most of the deaths in iraq arent even cause by iraq's, its cause by heli crashing, or road side bombs?
Again i dont support the wars, im just curious on some issues dealing with this war and for some reason, it would be good if everybody could go home and everything will be peacefu over there, but im dreaming i guess.
ahhaha
not at all, and I am sure their families feel the same
:rolleyes:
of course its a big deal, any unnecessary death is a big deal
Ho may disagree with you there.
You may not beat them on the battlefield, but wars aren't just fought by soldiers. Politicians are also involved and if you can make life uncomfortable for them...
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Yes, the vast majority of their stuff but they are doing lots of research and because of the weapons boycott from there, they've never sold these weapons so who knows what the chinese have up their sleeve? Project 863, apparently they're developing nanoweapons which would target nukes so that America loses it's defensive shield..
What about the Native American Indians?
Another issue would be whether the US could invade and successfully occupy any country it wanted. The answer to that is clearly no. They're already struggling and stretched to their limits by Iraq. They could hardly manage anything bigger or more complex.
So short of killing everyone in the country, the US can do little to control other countries' resources and land- and thank fuck for that!
The only way to possibly defeat the US in a conventional war would be a great alliance. But it would take every other country in the West and a few others in the Middle and Far East to achieve this.
In a nuclear war there would be no winners. There are a few nations capable of obliterating the United States, chiefly Russia, but the US would in turn would destroy the said nations with its own arsenal. M.A.D. still applies.
Unfortunately the scumbag currently sitting in the White House continues to promote a new nuclear arms race by its policy of aggression. North Korea has all but secured its integrity by acquiring nuclear capability as Bush hasn’t got the balls to attempt regime change there. Who can blame Iran for trying to procure its own nuclear weapons now? It is the only way a nation can protect itself today against the American Empire…
No, it isnt, neither is 10,000 civilian deaths in a country of 22 million. In the larger scheme of strategic issues these are acceptable losses. To change a region of the world for the better, they most certainly are.
Vietnam , correct? The American military never lost the Vietnam war, they lost it in Washington due to the cowardice of the political elite. The US destroyed the Tet offensive, and with 100,000 extra troops they could have coonquered the North and secured it against communism.
Looks interesting, im sure we'll see them in about 200 years. In Americas hands first of course. Half of all scientific research and development is done in te United States.
I disagree, they conquered Germany and Japan and essentially rebuilt these countries in their own image. With enough resources and time they could do this to any country. But thats just it , time, the American democratic process is obsessed wi9th short term results, this means it will be very difficult for any adminstration to make some real changes in the world.
They have successfully occupied Iraq, the fact that theyve lost only 900 soldiers in 2 years testafies to this.
The original war showed the awesome power of Americas lmilitary.
I can think of many countries which would be a lot better off under American occupation, Sudan for example. But I suppose your constant anti-american ideology would mean you didnt want the starving peasents to be infected with capitalist ideas.
Working on one right now are you? Even with the rest of the world against them, America would stll win. I dont think you understand the extent of their dominance.
Erm, I think that's what I said.
Wars aren't just fought on the battlefield. There is a political element too.
In fact, if the politicians listened to the experts - i.e. the armed forces, then things would have been different in Vietnam, Iraq and countless other wars.
It is possible to win a war - as Ho proved - without actually winning a battle.
Funnily enough America would be a lot better off under UN occupation, until the evil forces of neo-con Republicanism and PNAC subscribers were rooted out permanently.
Do you actually see the occupation of Iraq as a success?
Oh dear, your blind devotion to your idols is blinding your judgement again...
actually the bulk of genetic engineering research is done in china if im correct
and they doin it on a large animals too i believe which the western world is is reluctant to do
Matadore, you are more of a flag waver than most American rednecks which is utterly disturbing to say the least given that you aren't even a US citizen.
Where you get the idea that our capabilities enable a single nation which comprises a mere 5% of the total world population to not only hold its own but actually succeed against a determined opposition by the remaining 95% is anyone's guess.
the great american war machine conquered afghanistan first ...no it didn't ...no one has ever conquered that country though many have tried.
the greatest war machine in history stormed the capital city. they took one city.
the war lords still rule. now free to produce the biggest opium harvest in history!
women outside of kabul ...nothings changed except in some places it just got worse.
the machine then headed for iraq ...and again basicaly took one city. before the arrival of this awsome world power there was law and order in iraq and little or no terrorism ...the place is now bedlam.
so ...this greatest of war machines is ...how great?
Especially since half of America's enemies seem to be inside America itself.
looks quite depressing on the whole.
what happened to rock n roll then?
I didn't mean terrorists, but America has political parties all wanting their say, and the Army, Air Force and Navy all wanting their say, and just generally everyone wanting to be the top dog!
The average American soldier or Pilot would not stand a chance against a European counterpart. Our troops are trained for mobile and guerilla warfare, thanks largely in part to the threat of Soviet attack.
After the attack our troops would have to rely on themselves for support.
Can you imagine an American squad surviving without air support?
Yes, as long as America has it's carrier battle groups, a conventional attack on the US would probably fail. But once you're past them, whats going to stop you? The national guard? Lol.
We've all seen the calibre of America's "home army", producing greats like George Bush and Jennie England.
Look at past evidence. An inability to identify a target before shooting? An inability to survive on the ground for longer than 24 hours without support from higher up?
And a total inability to keep order in one of the LEAST technologically advanced nations on Earth.
As for the US being able to launch a conventional attack on a Western nation? The idea is laughable.
European Tanks and aircraft are superior in terms of firepower and armour to American equivalents, are tactical ability would mean all the Americans could do is sit off the coast launching cruise missiles at us.
if iwas to take command of any army, id pick the 1939 german army, you could conquer the world with it
/power mad episode
i must agree though the US Army is too reliant on air support these days, and their soldiers lack training in anything other than shooting without looking, unlike the UK army which may be small, and have quite crappy guns etc, but we well trained in all sorts of warfare, and in peace keeping too
As for a 1939 army? I'd use the British one, we managed to beat back superior numbers with inferior firepower.
and in 1940 hitler decided to personally intervene and stop a armourd division from going to a small port called dunkirk and blocking the B.A from getting back