Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Does anyone know the official list of the world's strongest militaries? I know the United States is #1, but what about after that?

u wud think the US is number one. ya stupid blastard

it's probably china who's #1 and U.S #2 after that i think it's russia, germany, france, canada.

China has well over a million people in full time military service.

Well is the total number the indicator you are looking for or overall ability's?

Overall I would say the USA has the strongest just not the largest.

Originally posted by bogen
it's probably china who's #1 and U.S #2 after that i think it's russia, germany, france, canada.

China has well over a million people in full time military service.

We should maybe not forget the UK...yeah..we shouldn't.

Originally posted by bogen
it's probably china who's #1 and U.S #2 after that i think it's russia, germany, france, canada.

China has well over a million people in full time military service. China's military has about 2.8 million people in its army, but it's poorly trained and equipped.

Originally posted by Strangelove
China's military has about 2.8 million people in its army, but it's poorly trained and equipped.

and they do kamikazes

The US military is far stronger than the Chinese in terms of technology, training, and equipment.

British Army has some top training.

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
and they do kamikazes

The fact that kamikaze is a Japanese word should give you an idea about how wrong that statement you made was.

Originally posted by Prodigal Knight
Does anyone know the official list of the world's strongest militaries? I know the United States is #1, but what about after that?

"Strongest" - highly subjective criteria. Strongest in terms of manpower? (eg. China) Technology? (US) Destructive capability? (US probably) psychological strength of soldiers? In terms of tactics?

Consensus is that the US probably takes number one position in the generic "strongest" category - of course it is intellectual really, since being strongest doesn't always translate to the battlefield were even the strongest can struggle against vastly inferior enemies (training and equipment wise) based upon things such as tactics, inflexible things etc.

I think its easy to interpret strongest as "best overall. "

Originally posted by Prodigal Knight
Does anyone know the official list of the world's strongest militaries? I know the United States is #1, but what about after that?
I would guess the top ten would include:
United States, China, UK, Russia, India, Germany, France, Pakistan, Japan (huge military budget), Israel

Whoever said Canada is ignorant of how much an international embarassment our military is. Luckily, new PM Stephen Harper is increasing spending so we can actually buy equipment and perform repairs on our existing equipment. We have a well trained military but it is too small and too underequipped.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

"Below you will find a basic ranking model of the world military powers in relation to country size. Values are based on a country's placement in our various lists and shown as a collective average. Naturally a list such as this is designed to be subjective so there is room for disagreement as to its accuracy (or inaccuracy).

NOTE: Nuclear weapons, past and current military experience, unit training and equipment quality are not taken into account. This is a ranking based soley on the reported numbers presented throughout this site based from official disclosed public sources."

1 United States
2 Russia
3 China
4 India
5 Germany
6 France
7 Japan
8 Turkey
9 Brazil
10 Great Britain
11 Italy
12 South Korea
13 Indonesia
14 Mexico
15 Canada
16 Iran
17 Egypt
18 North Korea
19 Spain
20 Pakistan
21 Australia
22 Saudi Arabia
23 Thailand
24 Argentina
25 Sweden
26 Israel
27 Greece
28 Taiwan
29 Syria
30 Philippines
31 Poland
32 Ukraine
33 Norway
34 Iraq
35 Libya
36 Venezuela
37 Lebanon
38 Nepal
39 Afghanistan

And the US pours more money into its defense budget than probably the next 20 combined. I know the statistic used to be the next 12 highest-spending but was going up rapidly.

The US spends more money than the next 8, I think. And I'm glad we do.

I agree with Alliance's list for the most part, though I thought Britain would make it higher than Japan.

It is strange to note that "Pakistan" and "Israel" are so much down in that list.

Anyways! the strongest nations today are: (considering all things)

- USA
- China
- Russia
- France
- UK
- Israel
- India
- Pakistan
- North Korea
- South Korea
- Iran
- Canada
- Turkey
- Japan

My list is not perfect but these nations are strongest (if you consider all things: Training, Nuclear Capability, Military Size etc)

Originally posted by Kinneary
The US spends more money than the next 8, I think. And I'm glad we do.

I agree with Alliance's list for the most part, though I thought Britain would make it higher than Japan.

Yeah, I a sure Russia, China, India, Germany, France, Japan, Turkey and Brazil would like totally start invading you if you'd spend less.

And considering nuclear capabilities I assume that Germany is indeed farther down the list. Of course if you give us ten years we shall kick Europe's butt once more. Nah, lets they the world's, should work on the third attempt.

You're developing a digital lisp.

Well I would say:

1.) United States
2.) Russia
3.) China
4.) France
5.) India
6.) Germany
7.) Israel
8.) UK
9.) Pakistan
10.) Japan

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You're developing a digital lisp.

Zis iz not true. And you know it. My language zkilss are exztraordinarily zuperiour to ozzer peoplez. You will not inzult ze German people. Sie werden sich hinsetzen. Sie werden ruhig sein.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I a sure Russia, China, India, Germany, France, Japan, Turkey and Brazil would like totally start invading you if you'd spend less.
I'm not worried about invasion. I'm talking about the influence we have from being so powerful.

Yo, x-spot (I shall call you that henceforth), Eis pointed out to me that I might have misunderstood your comment about the lisp. Explain your joke. Now!


Originally posted by Kinneary
I'm not worried about invasion. I'm talking about the influence we have from being so powerful.

Hmm, well, I assumed more of that is due to your strong economy.

Originally posted by Kinneary
I'm not worried about invasion. I'm talking about the influence we have from being so powerful. It's really sickening that you translate military power into influence over the world. You make it seem that We threaten invasion at the slightest.....oh wait.....

It's not the threat of invasion. It's the threat of the threat of an invasion, if that sentence makes sense anywhere outside of my mind. That is, you don't mess with the guy with the big gun. I'm sorry if this offends some people, but that's the way the world is.

Originally posted by Kinneary
It's not the threat of invasion. It's the threat of the threat of an invasion, if that sentence makes sense anywhere outside of my mind. That is, you don't mess with the guy with the big gun. I'm sorry if this offends some people, but that's the way the world is.

We have a small gun and we are not messed with....but I see your point. Though the ridiculous amount your spent (looking at your social problems) is a bit high, don't you think=

I think money can be cut from other social programs before we cut funding to our military, although some of the things we spend money on in the military can be cut out. Like free dental and healthcare for dependents of active duty personel. I'm in favor of minimizing government influence in the private lives of individuals, which includes a lot of school funding, etc.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We have a small gun and we are not messed with....but I see your point. Though the ridiculous amount your spent (looking at your social problems) is a bit high, don't you think=
NONSENSE!

It'll pay off in WWIII.

Originally posted by King Kandy
NONSENSE!

It'll pay off in WWIII.

NONSENSE.

It won't.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We have a small gun and we are not messed with

Well, that's partly because you have lots of other small guns backing you, and also rather significant to note that absolutely and directly the 'not messing with' of both West and East Germany was created by someone else's HUGE gun.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, that's partly because you have lots of other small guns backing you, and also rather significant to note that absolutely and directly the 'not messing with' of both West and East Germany was created by someone else's HUGE gun.

This does not help my point at all.

The problem is, a clear set of terms for judging "strongest" militaries needs to be defined.

Things to consider:

1. Raw number of activetroops.
2. Number of actve troops in realtion to population.
3. Number of active troops in realation to geographical area.
4. Percent of population with military training.
5. Training experience of troops.
6. Combat experience of troops.
7. Personal armament.
8. Manned technological support (both size of and depth of) (tanks, artillery, fightercraft, ships)
9. Unmanned technological support (nukes, bombs, unmanned vehicles)
10. Public and Government support of the military.
11. Defense budget.
12. Intelligence capabilities.
13. Independance of the Military economy.

Originally posted by Kinneary
I think money can be cut from other social programs before we cut funding to our military, although some of the things we spend money on in the military can be cut out. Like free dental and healthcare for dependents of active duty personel. I'm in favor of minimizing government influence in the private lives of individuals, which includes a lot of school funding, etc.

So you want to make our kids more stupid? Interesting.

I would have to say

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Brazil
4. Antarctica
5. Iceland




But I'm obviously retarded

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
So you want to make our kids more stupid? Interesting.

No, military service should be mandatory, and higher education included as a part of service.

Originally posted by Alliance

1 United States
2 Russia
3 China
4 India
5 Germany
6 France
7 Japan
8 Turkey
9 Brazil
10 Great Britain
11 Italy
12 South Korea
13 Indonesia
14 Mexico
15 Canada
16 Iran
17 Egypt
18 North Korea
19 Spain
20 Pakistan
21 Australia
22 Saudi Arabia
23 Thailand
24 Argentina
25 Sweden
26 Israel
27 Greece
28 Taiwan
29 Syria
30 Philippines
31 Poland
32 Ukraine
33 Norway
34 Iraq
35 Libya
36 Venezuela
37 Lebanon
38 Nepal
39 Afghanistan
I am shocked at how low Israel is considering that almost every able bodied person in Israel is well trained, how experienced they are, the military success they have had, the high quality and quantity of equipment, and public support (at least within Israel). Surprised to see Brazil and Turkey ahead of the UK considering their equipment and training advantages. Pakistan seems a bit low too. Not surprised to see Iran and Egypt up high although Egypt has dropped since Nasser.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
So you want to make our kids more stupid? Interesting.
I'm in favor of privatizing schools, not leaving them in the government's hands.

Originally posted by Alliance
6 France


France?

I'm surprised that joke of a military is so high on the list.

Originally posted by Alliance
The fact that kamikaze is a Japanese word should give you an idea about how wrong that statement you made was. Burn.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I am shocked at how low Israel is considering that almost every able bodied person in Israel is well trained, how experienced they are, the military success they have had, the high quality and quantity of equipment, and public support (at least within Israel). Surprised to see Brazil and Turkey ahead of the UK considering their equipment and training advantages. Pakistan seems a bit low too. Not surprised to see Iran and Egypt up high although Egypt has dropped since Nasser.


Yea ,becuase they trianed to kill innocent people but in lebanon war (real war) they were like chicken ,I dont know why US waste billions for isreal and ignore health care issue of most american people ? stupid ..

Pakistan and india are poor countries ,i think that their people need food and place to live more than weapons ...thats insane ..

Originally posted by Strangelove
China's military has about 2.8 million people in its army, but it's poorly trained and equipped.

Name me any military in the world that can beat China's apart from the United States.

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
and they do kamikazes

That's Japan. And they did those in World War II. bangin

You just know that means the CIA has some weird Batman style plan to cripple Turkey's military.

You say this? Your country was under Turks control from 16th century to 19th century. lol

Omg lol sorry i saw "plan for Turkey's cripple military" ^^

What about the Roman Empire?

I didn't know they still existed.

@ Fatima
Oh you live in the UAE too?
What region? Dubai, Abu Dhabi?


The strongest military is undoubtedly the US of A.
Just watch an episode of Future Weapons, and you will see their technology is unparalleled.

The Mujaheddin

They eat super-powers for breakfast

Them evil doers over in the middle East seem pretty badass. I mean, they beat Russia and America using only IED's, rpgs and Ak-47's. Although, I guess America wasn't in Iraq to fight a war, but still, they sent Russia packing.

Russians were in Afghanistan, and Shaheeds and Mujahedeens that ''sent Russia packing'' were trained and equipped by USA. Taliban was an entirely American funded/trained/sponsored group to fight off those ''komunist'' Russians.

What Russians found out the hard way and America apparently still hasn't is that the terrain of Afghanistan is already extremely difficult lead any kind of war in, let alone successfully invade.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Russians were in Afghanistan, and Shaheeds and Mujahedeens that ''sent Russia packing'' were trained and equipped by USA. Taliban was an entirely American funded/trained/sponsored group to fight off those ''komunist'' Russians.

What Russians found out the hard way and America apparently still hasn't is that the terrain of Afghanistan is already extremely difficult lead any kind of war in, let alone successfully invade.

i think it depends.

if either of the countries' aims were to simply move in to the country and kill the shit out of it it wouldnt be that hard of a task. as it stands, trying to occupy the country or any of the middle eastern countries is almost an impossibility because any civilian is a possible enemy, but the soldiers arent allowed to preemptively fight civilians... as that would defeat the purpose of being there in the first place.

but regardless youre right. its not as if their armies are just is much superior.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Russians were in Afghanistan, and Shaheeds and Mujahedeens that ''sent Russia packing'' were trained and equipped by USA. Taliban was an entirely American funded/trained/sponsored group to fight off those ''komunist'' Russians.

What Russians found out the hard way and America apparently still hasn't is that the terrain of Afghanistan is already extremely difficult lead any kind of war in, let alone successfully invade.

True

it all depends on how you want to classify the groups. While the concept is similar, the Mujahedeens in Iraq are not the same that were in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Somalia, Kashmir or Palestine. However, loosely put, they all fight under essentially the same flag and have similar tactics and recruitment methods. Also, the leaders from some conflicts did migrate to others in order to train in fledgling organizations.

Whatever it is, the sort of pan-arab nationalism is strong, and Afghanistan aside, the Muj has given NATO, Russia, India and a ever increasing number of smaller nations pretty glaring black eyes.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
its not as if their armies are just is much superior.

-Iraqi resistance groups force the withdrawal of every non-American member of the coalition of the willing, and soon to be the Americans as well.

-Lebanon defeats Israel in the Summer War.

-Many NATO generals claim that the Taliban is too strong militarily to defeat in Afghanistan without full scale war with Pakistan. The British have gone so far as to say "There is no military solution in Afghanistan". They didn't mention the terrain iirc.

Their armies might not be technologically superior, but asymmetrical warfare can even out a battlefield quite quickly.

Originally posted by inimalist
-Iraqi resistance groups force the withdrawal of every non-American member of the coalition of the willing, and soon to be the Americans as well.

-Lebanon defeats Israel in the Summer War.

-Many NATO generals claim that the Taliban is too strong militarily to defeat in Afghanistan without full scale war with Pakistan. The British have gone so far as to say "There is no military solution in Afghanistan". They didn't mention the terrain iirc.

Their armies might not be technologically superior, but asymmetrical warfare can even out a battlefield quite quickly.

those events you listed reinforce what i said...

there is no military solution because our specific military goal is unachievable. if the united states goal was to, for example, kill every man women and child in iraq and afghanistan we could do it even without the use of nukes and moabs. they wouldnt be able to stop us with their military. no single middle eastern country would be able to defeat us without otuside help or circumstances.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
those events you listed reinforce what i said...

there is no military solution because our specific military goal is unachievable. if the untied states goal was to, for example, kill every man women and child in iraq and afghanistan we coudl do it even without the use of nukes and moabs. they wouldnt be able to stop us with their military.

indeed, but that isn't how the Americans wage war

and the Muj strategy prevented them from achieving their actual goals

its not how they wage war, but it proves that ultimately if the two armies fought head to head the US would emerge victorious. most of the middle eastern countries rely on the fact that our goal is to institute a new government not destroy everything or enslave the people. thus i wouldnt call any of the middle eastern militaries "powerful" so to speak.

im mostly just referring to the thread's topic. i personally consider a militarie's "strength" by how well it can defend a country as well as invade others. for all of their guerrilla tactics id say 99% of the ME countries would get decimated if they tried to invade a first world country. as such i dont really consider them all that strong as opposed to countries like the us and russia who can succesfully defend their homelands and take out the majority of the world's countries without difficulty in a straight up fight.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
its not how they wage war, but it proves that ultimately if the two armies fought head to head the US would emerge victorious. most of the middle eastern countries rely on the fact that our goal is to institute a new government not destroy everything or enslave the people. thus i wouldnt call any of the middle eastern militaries "powerful" so to speak.

im mostly just referring to the thread's topic. i personally consider a militarie's "strength" by how well it can defend a country as well as invade others. for all of their guerrilla tactics id say 99% of the ME countries would get decimated if they tried to invade a first world country. as such i dont really consider them all that strong as opposed to countries like the us and russia who can succesfully defend their homelands and take out the majority of the world's countries without difficulty in a straight up fight.

the strength of the Muj is that there is no army to stand and fight against head to head. They use a different type of strength that isn't really comparable directly to conventional armies, but is highly effective at defeating them.

Also, the Muj is very different from middle eastern state armies, another one of its strengths actually.

EDIT: Both Saudi Arabia and Iran would likely have their way with the Canadian forces if they met head to head on neutral ground. Neither would be able to occupy Canada, though I would argue that is more due to Canada being unoccupiable.

Originally posted by inimalist
the strength of the Muj is that there is no army to stand and fight against head to head. They use a different type of strength that isn't really comparable directly to conventional armies, but is highly effective at defeating them.

thats why i dont really consider them a "powerful military". i personally dont consider factions who use civilians as shields and as weapons to be "armies".





its canada lol buncha hippies.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
thats why i dont really consider them a "powerful military". i personally dont consider factions who use civilians as shields and as weapons to be "armies".

Fair enough, but that is a matter of tactics. Conventional state armies, I'm sure, do similar, if not more atrocious things (think the Burmese and that ilk).

Originally posted by WO Polaski
its canada lol buncha hippies.

Still

inimalist - 1

WO Polaski - 0

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Russians were in Afghanistan, and Shaheeds and Mujahedeens that ''sent Russia packing'' were trained and equipped by USA. Taliban was an entirely American funded/trained/sponsored group to fight off those ''komunist'' Russians.

What Russians found out the hard way and America apparently still hasn't is that the terrain of Afghanistan is already extremely difficult lead any kind of war in, let alone successfully invade.


same difference.


America was never there to invade or fight a war though. America only entered Iraq to maintain a presence that was needed to fuel the illusion of a war to the public.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
those events you listed reinforce what i said...

there is no military solution because our specific military goal is unachievable. if the united states goal was to, for example, kill every man women and child in iraq and afghanistan we could do it even without the use of nukes and moabs. they wouldnt be able to stop us with their military. no single middle eastern country would be able to defeat us without otuside help or circumstances.

+1000

Big respects to America.

The nation has only existed for 300 years as other nations have existed under the same form of army for thousands of years. Yet, the U.S. still surpasses. O_o

Originally posted by Fatima
Yea ,becuase they trianed to kill innocent people but in lebanon war (real war) they were like chicken ,I dont know why US waste billions for isreal and ignore health care issue of most american people ? stupid ..

Pakistan and india are poor countries ,i think that their people need food and place to live more than weapons ...thats insane ..


Innocent Fatima ,
after reading your blog I couldnt help my self without
replying to you..
just to let you know that as per the Reports of International Monetary fund
(IMF) , World bank and Cia ( Assuming that u knw wat theses are...)

So called Poor Country India have the purchasing power (Hard Cash and not talkin about share market buble) to buy Lebanon 66 times this year and still have enough money left ....and next year in 2010 we can again buy you 100 times and still have enough money left.....
get on ground Reality ...... may be u can hv some Laban tht might mk u feel better....lo
if you think u can face the hard realities Sweetheart ... go log on to www wikipedia org get some facts...

Originally posted by Brahmos
Innocent Fatima ,
after reading your blog I couldnt help my self without
replying to you..
just to let you know that as per the Reports of International Monetary fund
(IMF) , World bank and Cia ( Assuming that u knw wat theses are...)

So called Poor Country India have the purchasing power (Hard Cash and not talkin about share market buble) to buy Lebanon 66 times this year and still have enough money left ....and next year in 2010 we can again buy you 100 times and still have enough money left.....
get on ground Reality ...... may be u can hv some Laban tht might mk u feel better....lo
if you think u can face the hard realities Sweetheart ... go log on to www wikipedia org get some facts...

lol

india is a poor country

For now... but don't worry, their brand new nuclear submarines will soon fix that.

no it wont.

There are rich people in India, but until villages like Kerala aren't subsistence, and until Female infanticide in poor rural areas (largely because of how much money one traditionally has to put into a females wedding ) is done, India is still poor.

Nuclear subs, afaik, have never solved poverty

Originally posted by inimalist
no it wont.

There are rich people in India, but until villages like Kerala aren't subsistence, and until Female infanticide in poor rural areas (largely because of how much money one traditionally has to put into a females wedding ) is done, India is still poor.

Nuclear subs, afaik, have never solved poverty *facepalms*

the internet lacks subtlety

we are all strong if we dont quarrel each other........

why military, why tension??

worship PEACE... non-violence is strongest

EVERY BODY ,

Originally posted by VINAY3D
we are all strong if we dont quarrel each other........

why military, why tension??

worship PEACE... non-violence is strongest

No thanks. War kicks ass.

Originally posted by Strangelove
China's military has about 2.8 million people in its army, but it's poorly trained and equipped.

You would think. I have been to China, everybody is a potential soldier. "Recess" in schools is millitary drills and excercises in disciplin, timming, execution, etc.

So even if they are not in the army, give them a rifle a week (China? more like three INTENSE days) of basic trainning, BAM! Soldier.

terran marine terran tanks terran goliaths terran wraiths

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
You would think. I have been to China, everybody is a potential soldier. "Recess" in schools is millitary drills and excercises in disciplin, timming, execution, etc.

So even if they are not in the army, give them a rifle a week (China? more like three INTENSE days) of basic trainning, BAM! Soldier.
I could be wrong, but didn't the Japanese do the same thing? I believe they could easily overpower most, if not all, asian countries. Let's be honest though, what people talk about is a war between China and America when speaking of China's military strength, and that war would be a naval one. All of their drilling really wouldn't mean that much. For example, drilling in the American military isn't even that big of a deal. Sure we all learn to do it in boot camp and our basic schools, but then you'll never do it again.

It's just to enforce the concept of teamwork and attention to detail, not any real modern tactical purpose.

i thinks it's more better.
1 USA
2 RUSSIA
3 CHINA
4 ISRAEL
5 UK
6 GERMANY
7 FRANCE
8 JAPAN
9 NORTH KOREA
10 INDIA (MY COUNTRY)
11 SOUTH KOREA
12 PAKISTAN

Israel > US

1. USA
2. China
3. UK
4. Russia
5. Israel
6. Germany
7. France
8. Japan
9. North Korea
10. India

Originally posted by Burning thought
1. USA
2. China
3. UK
4. Russia
5. Israel


so powerful, in fact, that they cannot defeat a loosely aligned force of religious extremists.

actually, the Chinese do it best..........

we could do it in about a week if our job was to kill them.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
we could do it in about a week if our job was to kill them.

no, you couldn't

you could kill huge swaths of the civilian population who hide the maybe hundreds of fighters. However, in such action you would generate more fighters than you killed, expanding the scope of the current Afghan conflict from the West coast of Africa to the Philippines.

For instance, your goal since 9-11 has been to kill Bin Laden. Using indiscriminate air strikes and drones, you haven't got this singular individual, and his supporters have become more powerful. However, you propose that more of the same would get all of them?

I'm glad the Americans understand terrorism

EDIT: not to mention, even as far as conventional warfare goes, NATO commanders have pretty much said, unequivically, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. You can't kill your way out of an insurgency. And no, while Al Qaeda and the Taliban movements are NOT the same thing, the presence of American troops, or any common enemy, makes them very much tied militarily.

way to like... totally not see my point.

I thought I addressed your point...

In your scenario are all the Muj in the world lined up and standing in the open for you to bomb?

where did i imply that killing everyone would solve the problems in the middle east? you said that we're unable to defeat a "loosely aligned force of religious extremists".

i suppose the confusion come from your definition of "defeat" in this context...

out of curiosity do you think that if if our military object changed to sterilizing Afghanistan and iraq of its population, meaning just kill everybody in those countries the army comes across, do you think any of those terrorist organizations could stop us from doing that? and no i dont mean by sneaking people out of the country i mean by actually fighting soldiers back and preventing them from killing civilians. do you think they could?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
where did i imply that killing everyone would solve the problems in the middle east? you said that we're unable to defeat a "loosely aligned force of religious extremists".

i suppose the confusion come from your definition of "defeat" in this context...

out of curiosity do you think that if if our military object changed to sterilizing Afghanistan and iraq of its population, meaning just kill everybody in those countries the army comes across, do you think any of those terrorist organizations could stop us from doing that? and no i dont mean by sneaking people out of the country i mean by actually fighting soldiers back and preventing them from killing civilians. do you think they could?

It's pretty hard to flatten an entire country.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
out of curiosity do you think that if if our military object changed to sterilizing Afghanistan and iraq of its population, meaning just kill everybody in those countries the army comes across, do you think any of those terrorist organizations could stop us from doing that? and no i dont mean by sneaking people out of the country i mean by actually fighting soldiers back and preventing them from killing civilians. do you think they could?

no, but they don't fight like that anyways...

not to mention it is those very tactics that spawn more terrorists, and such heavy handedness would instantly polarize all allies America has in the region.

like, who is it you think you are fighting? The people of Iraq?

Originally posted by inimalist
no, you couldn't

you could kill huge swaths of the civilian population who hide the maybe hundreds of fighters. However, in such action you would generate more fighters than you killed, expanding the scope of the current Afghan conflict from the West coast of Africa to the Philippines.

For instance, your goal since 9-11 has been to kill Bin Laden. Using indiscriminate air strikes and drones, you haven't got this singular individual, and his supporters have become more powerful. However, you propose that more of the same would get all of them?

I'm glad the Americans understand terrorism

EDIT: not to mention, even as far as conventional warfare goes, NATO commanders have pretty much said, unequivically, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. You can't kill your way out of an insurgency. And no, while Al Qaeda and the Taliban movements are NOT the same thing, the presence of American troops, or any common enemy, makes them very much tied militarily.


Afghanistan has never been able to be conquered for very long. It's not so much an insurgency as a bunch of roving criminal gangs shooting at everyone. The Taliban also poses 0 threat to America.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Afghanistan has never been able to be conquered for very long. It's not so much an insurgency as a bunch of roving criminal gangs shooting at everyone. The Taliban also poses 0 threat to America.

indeed, but I'm not talking about the Taliban, nor the people of Afghanistan.

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, but I'm not talking about the Taliban, nor the people of Afghanistan. I know, just adding an addendum for Ms Marvel.

Even if our plan was to just carpet bomb everyone, there would still be plenty of survivors eager to avenge the dead. It suprises me that people think you can just waltz onto someone's property and act like it's yours.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
I know, just adding an addendum for Ms Marvel.

Even if our plan was to just carpet bomb everyone, there would still be plenty of survivors eager to avenge the dead. It suprises me that people think you can just waltz onto someone's property and act like it's yours.

ah, my bad, I tend to confuse things... lol

Its just so strange to me that, 8 years on, people don't seem to understand where these people who want to kill Westerners so badly come from.

Sure, America could kill ~100% of the population of any nation before the people of that nation could retaliate, but that is so irrelevant. Carpet bombing has destabilized Pakistan to the point that it engaged in a civil war that is increasingly being fought in major cities. Its as if Ms Marvel thinks more carpet bombing in that area would lead to more stability in Pakistan...

Originally posted by inimalist
no, but they don't fight like that anyways...

so then youd agree that if that was their military objective they would fail at it. they would be "defeated" by the us military./



im trying to make a point. maybe youre just being facetious and i suck at detecting internet humor but from what i see youre using the situation in the middle east as proof of the us militaries ineptitude. my point is that the failed war on terror hardly points to the us army not being the strongest in the world, or even the most affective. its not getting its ass kicked due to inefficiency its getting its ass kicked because its trying to achieve a goal thats its not inherently designed to achieve.

im tipsy right now and cant word this properly ill add onto this later

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so then youd agree that if that was their military objective they would fail at it. they would be "defeated" by the us military./

of course. I've mentioned it before in this thread: the specific power of the Mujaheddin is how they fight.

if they fought like the Americans, sure, they would loose.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
im trying to make a point. maybe youre just being facetious and i suck at detecting internet humor but from what i see youre using the situation in the middle east as proof of the us militaries ineptitude. my point is that the failed war on terror hardly points to the us army not being the strongest in the world, or even the most affective. its not getting its ass kicked due to inefficiency its getting its ass kicked because its trying to achieve a goal thats its not inherently designed to achieve.

im tipsy right now and cant word this properly ill add onto this later

My point is more about the nature of asymmetrical warfare. The Muj has developed military strategy that undermines what you consider the power of the American military. Sure, the Americans could beat any conventional military on the planet. Why the **** would anyone join a conventional military or use conventional tactics when fighting them.

It seems to me that you want to define power in a very limited way, as in: Power is the ability to engage in what America defines as warfare. This is totally untrue. Sure, the Muj isn't a force bent on invading or conquering territory, but it does huge damage to conventional armies. Your charge that I'm criticizing the Americans for not being able to do what they aren't designed for is equally as valid in your conceptualization of the Muj. They aren't designed to fight you face to face.

Originally posted by inimalist
of course. I've mentioned it before in this thread: the specific power of the Mujaheddin is how they fight.

if they fought like the Americans, sure, they would loose.



so if both armies are designed to fight in two completely different ways how can you say that one is superior to the other or use their skirmishes against one another to gauge their overall strength?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
so if both armies are designed to fight in two completely different ways how can you say that one is superior to the other or use their skirmishes against one another to gauge their overall strength?

both are designed to fight conventional armies, one is a conventional army.

said conventional army is also designed to destroy other conventional armies and occupy its territory. loosely organized terrorist group can not do that.

if you want to "keep score" of their strengths and weaknesses, that would be 1-1

so, that really doesnt answer my question.

ok, cool, you have, undoubtedly the most powerful military on the planet

though it is inept at defeating the enemies it has currently declared and is in the process of losing two wars against a comparatively poorly armed force with a fraction of the man-power.

have it your way then

are you having a bad day or are you always this obtuse?

if that isn't your argument, what is?

forget it. maybe someone else can simplify my point for you... perhaps if a non-american parrots it you'll understand my actual message and not automatically pass it off as redneck patriotic bullshit.

I don't see why you are getting so defensive...

If America has the strongest military, period, in the world, why are they losing two wars to a less well armed and less numerous enemy with less resources?

You might say: "Because they are tying their hands, America could bomb any nation these people are in to the ground", but that isn't an actual victory against the Muj. Looking at Lebanon in the 80s and Pakistan today, actions of those type appear to strengthen the people America has deemed its enemies. It is irrelevant, then, how many people America could kill, unless you are suggesting that victory for the Americans is killing everyone, including, eventually, a huge portion of their own population.

EDIT: if heavy handed militirism were the solution to this brand of terrorism, Israel would have successfully occupied Gaza decades ago.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see why you are getting so defensive...

If America has the strongest military, period, in the world, why are they losing two wars to a less well armed and less numerous enemy with less resources?

Because Home Turf terrain and the All-Out Defense action gives a total +4 strategy modifier?


Seriously though, there's no good way to judge the power of a military in absolute terms. The terrain in which combat occurs has a great effect on how each battle goes. We can ask ourselves: which military could win this war? If there's no good answer then America's failure in these two wars probably doesn't count against it in relative terms.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because Home Turf and the All-Out Defense actions give a total +4 strategy modifier?


Seriously though, there's no good way to judge the power of a military in absolute terms. The terrain in which combat occurs has a great effect on how each battle goes. We can ask ourselves: which military could win this war? If there's no good answer then America's failure in these two wars probably doesn't count against it in relative terms.

Fair enough, though "America not winning the war" could be seen as the only objective of the Muj.

Though, yes, I agree that it is generally impossible to say who is more powerful absolutely. Context plays a huge role, however effective asymmetrical warfare requires one to pick its battles very well.

edit- sym got it.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
edit- sym got it.

I had the pleasure of reading what you put

all things considered, I've admitted what you were saying from the beginning. America is the most powerful conventional army on the planet. Period. They will be more successful at conventional military campaigns defined my conventional military goals than any other military on the planet.

I think what I am trying to say is, go beyond sheer numbers and tech. Ok, so if nobody could be conventionally successful in Afghanistan, how "powerful" is the military that goes in?

I'd also point out that many armies are much more successful at dealing with the Muj or related insurgencies. Pakistan in Waziristan, India in Kashmir and the Punjab, Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the Shri Lankan gvt and the Tamil Tigers, even the British in Ireland. However, they are most successful because of their unconventional tactics, or even basic policing, than they are from a traditional military point of view, though some are winning very important traditional military victories. (though, very few examples of a foreign power being successful in a region... however, most insurgents feel their land is independent... plays the biggest role with the rest of society. A person might help a local government against their neighbours rather than a foreign one).

Maybe I'm talking about something else entirely, but tactics, imho, are as much a part of "power" as is force. Tactics and planning you really can't give to the Americans. Is the Muj the most tactful army on the planet, probably not, but I would argue they do out maneuver the Americans (or appear to). An example might be the summer war between Israel and Hezbullah. Israel destroyed and killed so much more than did Hezbullah, but in the end, the tactics of the small militant group proved most successful, and Hezbullah is generally considered to, if not won, have had the best outcome from the event.

Hell, half of this is to even have something to talk about. Going on sheer numbers and stats, nobody touches America. They could engage in conventional war on multiple fronts against other world powers. And my stance is hardly anti-American. What I've said equally applies to most armies. Hell, replace America with Canada.

Originally posted by inimalist

Maybe I'm talking about something else entirely, but tactics, imho, are as much a part of "power" as is force. Tactics and planning you really can't give to the Americans.

Right on the mark. Planning and tactics, indeed.

Mujahedeens and Shaheeds of Afghanistan not only had the military equipment supplied by the largest and most powerful army in the world (Americans) they also had the tactics. Russians were not gonna win that one.

But America will soon find itself in the same situation Russians found themselves in.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Right on the mark. Planning and tactics, indeed.

Mujahedeens and Shaheeds of Afghanistan not only had the military equipment supplied by the largest and most powerful army in the world (Americans) they also had the tactics. Russians were not gonna win that one.

But America will soon find itself in the same situation Russians found themselves in.

Perhaps, although to be honest this time the terrorists aren't getting supplied by a superpower...not that we know of.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

But America will soon find itself in the same situation Russians found themselves in.

What situation is that?

communist dictatorship.

Obama has the power to overthrow the republican aspects of this psycho asylum, he's just too damn lazy.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Perhaps, although to be honest this time the terrorists aren't getting supplied by a superpower...not that we know of.

True, although I wouldn't be surprised if Saudi Wahhabi are pumping money into Taliban.
Also, trained by Americans, they have picked up a lot of useful info.
Originally posted by KidRock
What situation is that?

Having to withdraw from Afghanistan when Taliban overwhelms Americans and kills god knows how many more of young men and women.

Think Vietnam.

If Obama thinks he can win this one, is he ever so wrong.

N.B. this list is based on my opinion of who which country would fare better in a war against another, head to head:
1. USA: Umm, kinda of an obvious choice. Unmatched in terms of the combination of resources, technology, force projection capability on a global scale, personnel training, equipment ... the list goes on. Would win against any of the countries below (aka any country in the world), whether in terms of the Army, Navy, or Airforce. Regularly flexes its military muscle in the world (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again, etc.). Military bases all over the world give its forces a definite logistical edge at least over any would-be enemies. Military spending to dwarf the rest of the list (and any country in the world, for that matter).
2. Russia: Still has considerable might left from the Cold War era. Civil strife and economical decline have weakened it somewhat, causing some equipment used to become dated, and a decrease in the combat ability of the army. In a head to head war, would have the second best offense, and its ability to fight a war of attrition is formidable. The new Russian MBT is probably overhyped, but still provides evidence that R&D has not been halted completely. Oh, and don't forget that it has enough of a nuclear arsenal assuring mutual annihilation at the very least, in case of nuclear warfare.
3. China: usage of dated weapons is being gradually phased out, military spending is being increased. An interesting characteristic is the concentration in certain classes of high-tech weapons, e.g. MBT, fighter aircraft, and submarines. The army size is being decreased to form a smaller, more efficient fighting force. Basic training ranks highly in the world, though experience with sophisticated weaponry is still somewhat lacking.
4. Germany: tough, well trained Army, highly efficient and technologically sophisticated. A strong military tradition, and a staggering will to resist to the bitter end. A strong Navy, and formidable Airforce to be reckoned with for any opposition. Their forces are also highly experienced and organised.
5. Japan: a surprise entry? Not really, when you consider the fact that it has one of the best navies in the world. Its military spending is formidable, but what sets it apart, like Germany, is its people's will to fight on. A large military budget, state-of-the-art technology, and excellent training makes its Army a worthy foe for any other country. It would have the economical edge over most other countries, and has a sophisticated military force to go.

hey guys... how about UNIVERSAL SOLDIER? i think they are tough enough!!!

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Does anyone know the official list of the world's strongest militaries? I know the United States is #1, but what about after that?

Have You Checked GlobalFirepower.com i think they opinion quite objective,.

There are a lot of things about US military power that are overlooked. Congress has failed to declare war for over 50 years resulting in massive profiteering in every conflict especially over the last ten years, becoming a massive factor in nearly bankrupting the country. Privatization of many military services and use of militias (cough, cough contractors) has further weakened the military. The outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has also outsourced ALL STRATEGIC INDUSTRIES (Thank you free trade and supply side economics!). The US is incapable of mass producing weaponry without international cooperation, making it helpless in case of a invasion wherein supply routes can be cutoff. For all our showboating in wars, when it comes to having an effective military force for defense, I doubt the US is even in the top 5.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
edit- sym got it. If present war still like colonial war,. maybe it'll much easier to decide who's stronger,. but i think globalfirepower.com quite objective,. their catagories of "strong" was reasonable,.

Originally posted by Strangelove
China's military has about 2.8 million people in its army, but it's poorly trained and equipped.


So what? They all know Kung Fu really well!

Originally posted by Darth Jello
There are a lot of things about US military power that are overlooked. Congress has failed to declare war for over 50 years resulting in massive profiteering in every conflict especially over the last ten years, becoming a massive factor in nearly bankrupting the country. Privatization of many military services and use of militias (cough, cough contractors) has further weakened the military. The outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has also outsourced ALL STRATEGIC INDUSTRIES (Thank you free trade and supply side economics!). The US is incapable of mass producing weaponry without international cooperation, making it helpless in case of a invasion wherein supply routes can be cutoff. For all our showboating in wars, when it comes to having an effective military force for defense, I doubt the US is even in the top 5.

you are anticipating an invasion from Canada or Mexico?

Otherwise, I feel America can probably defend itself against any invasion force coming across the oceans without needing to build any new equipment...

Originally posted by inimalist
you are anticipating an invasion from Canada or Mexico?

Otherwise, I feel America can probably defend itself against any invasion force coming across the oceans without needing to build any new equipment...

Not if all the Chinese jump in the water at once and cause a Tsunami you can't.

Originally posted by inimalist
you are anticipating an invasion from Canada or Mexico? Dude! Shut uuup.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Dude! Shut uuup.

haha, Canada and Mexico need to do a super-hero team-up

1- Canada
2- Republic of Zombieland
3- Galactic Empire
4- Chuck Norris
5- Your mom

hey all.. those who think india is a poor country..checkout this..

India :: 5
Rank country GDP (purchasing power parity) Date of Information



1 European Union $ 14,820,000,000,000 2010 est.

2 United States $ 14,660,000,000,000 2010 est.

3 China $ 10,090,000,000,000 2010 est.

4 Japan $ 4,310,000,000,000 2010 est.

5 India $ 4,060,000,000,000 2010 est.

6 Germany $ 2,940,000,000,000 2010 est.

7 Russia $ 2,223,000,000,000 2010 est.

8 United Kingdom $ 2,173,000,000,000 2010 est.

9 Brazil $ 2,172,000,000,000 2010 est.

10 France $ 2,145,000,000,000 2010 est.

11 Italy $ 1,774,000,000,000 2010 est.

12 Mexico $ 1,567,000,000,000 2010 est.

13 Korea, South $ 1,459,000,000,000 2010 est.

14 Spain $ 1,369,000,000,000 2010 est.

15 Canada $ 1,330,000,000,000 2010 est.

16 Indonesia $ 1,030,000,000,000 2010 est.

17 Turkey $ 960,500,000,000 2010 est.

18 Australia $ 882,400,000,000 2010 est.

19 Taiwan $ 821,800,000,000 2010 est.

20 Iran $ 818,700,000,000 2010 est.

21 Poland $ 721,300,000,000 2010 est.

22 Netherlands $ 676,900,000,000 2010 est.

23 Saudi Arabia $ 622,000,000,000 2010 est.

24 Argentina $ 596,000,000,000 2010 est.

25 Thailand $ 586,900,000,000 2010 est.

26 South Africa $ 524,000,000,000 2010 est.

27 Egypt $ 497,800,000,000 2010 est.

28 Pakistan $ 464,900,000,000 2010 est.

29 Colombia $ 435,400,000,000 2010 est.

India's still a poor country.

When India doesn't suffer from having a ridiculously high percentage of its people living in utter poverty, it'll then have the right to consider itself a "wealthy" country.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
India's still a poor country.

When India doesn't suffer from having a ridiculously high percentage of its people living in utter poverty, it'll then have the right to consider itself a "wealthy" country.


I say that about the US all the time.

I do too.

And then I remember that America's "poor class" shits on what would be considered "middle class" in third world countries, and so then I feel silly for saying it.

Exceptions aside, America's poor live pretty comfortable lives compared to most of the world's poor.

Originally posted by inimalist
I had the pleasure of reading what you put

all things considered, I've admitted what you were saying from the beginning. America is the most powerful conventional army on the planet. Period. They will be more successful at conventional military campaigns defined my conventional military goals than any other military on the planet.

I think what I am trying to say is, go beyond sheer numbers and tech. Ok, so if nobody could be conventionally successful in Afghanistan, how "powerful" is the military that goes in?

I'd also point out that many armies are much more successful at dealing with the Muj or related insurgencies. Pakistan in Waziristan, India in Kashmir and the Punjab, Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, the Shri Lankan gvt and the Tamil Tigers, even the British in Ireland. However, they are most successful because of their unconventional tactics, or even basic policing, than they are from a traditional military point of view, though some are winning very important traditional military victories. (though, very few examples of a foreign power being successful in a region... however, most insurgents feel their land is independent... plays the biggest role with the rest of society. A person might help a local government against their neighbours rather than a foreign one).

Maybe I'm talking about something else entirely, but tactics, imho, are as much a part of "power" as is force. Tactics and planning you really can't give to the Americans. Is the Muj the most tactful army on the planet, probably not, but I would argue they do out maneuver the Americans (or appear to). An example might be the summer war between Israel and Hezbullah. Israel destroyed and killed so much more than did Hezbullah, but in the end, the tactics of the small militant group proved most successful, and Hezbullah is generally considered to, if not won, have had the best outcome from the event.

Hell, half of this is to even have something to talk about. Going on sheer numbers and stats, nobody touches America. They could engage in conventional war on multiple fronts against other world powers. And my stance is hardly anti-American. What I've said equally applies to most armies. Hell, replace America with Canada.

To me, the countries you mentioned don't use any tactic except kill anyone and everyone to control through fear. If the US used that tactic, then they would wipe those countries out pretty quickly. But, fortunately for those countries, the US does have ROE so that we do not slaughter mass amounts of innocent people. Not saying that every man or woman in the US military fights honorably, but most of us do.

I don't understand how you don't think the US military has sound tactics.

Originally posted by Mr_Sticky_belly
So what? They all know Kung Fu really well!

I'd take a gun over Kung Fu any day.

The whole gigantic manpower army is obsolete any ways. How would they move all of them? How many bases do they have strategically placed all over the world?

Originally posted by socool8520
I'd take a gun over Kung Fu any day.

The whole gigantic manpower army is obsolete any ways. How would they move all of them? How many bases do they have strategically placed all over the world? Bases and camps can be built during the campaign.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Bases and camps can be built during the campaign.

Which takes time and resources. US has the advantage since they already have several bases worldwide. Less time to set up, more time to kill enemy. Plus, with an army of China's size, mobilization and sustainment will be a huge problem.

Originally posted by socool8520
To me, the countries you mentioned don't use any tactic except kill anyone and everyone to control through fear. If the US used that tactic, then they would wipe those countries out pretty quickly. But, fortunately for those countries, the US does have ROE so that we do not slaughter mass amounts of innocent people. Not saying that every man or woman in the US military fights honorably, but most of us do.

Yes, creating a situation where they have a weakness to asymmetrical tactics on a battlefield.

Also, given America still is functionally a democracy, they could not do such a thing. The American people don't have a stomach for such a conflict. Further, the Soviets had no problem with such brutality and they were routed handily in Afghanistan, by the very Muj fighters I was saying had good tactics.

Similarly, the Israelis have had many recent engagements with Hamas and Hezbollah, where they have had no problem targeting apartment complexes, schools, and even a united nations building, yet did not achieve clear victories in any of the skirmishes, and in some cases took very clear losses.

American tactics in Libya were much better, and reflect what was done in Yugoslavia and Serbia, but the context on the ground in those situations was much different and they were not fighting a Muj army in either case (it might be argued they supported the Muj in both cases).

The reason, tactically, why I was saying the Muj are so powerful is exactly because they can find and are willing to exploit the weaknesses in the forces they are fighting. If that means targeting innocents (it doesn't always), they will exploit that.

And further, if you want to talk about civilian deaths, America is responsible for death and carnage done to innocent people on a scale Al Qaeda only dreams of being able to accomplish. At least 170 000 civilian deaths in Iraq and over 1 000 000 displaced, ROE or not, that isn't a military that is trying to avoid civilian casualties.

Originally posted by socool8520
I don't understand how you don't think the US military has sound tactics.

in the context of their engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, essentially they took the bait from OBL and invaded nations where asymmetrical tactics would be most effective, and at the time I wrote that, the Americans had done little to counteract this. Certain strategies have been developed since then that help, arguably (the "surge", arming local militias, paying people not to fight them, etc). However, these tactics don't do much for hearts and minds, and often embolden those who want to fight America (Al-Sadr), or create problems on the ground that are going to erupt as soon as American forces aren't there stopping inter-group conflict (the Sunni awakening councils, for instance).

As individual soldiers and on a clear battlefield, sure, Americans know group formations and good military tactics. Take them out of that context into a guerilla situation, these tactics can often become a liability. Remember the blackhawk helicopter footage showing the Americans killing a reporter and a series of civilians driving around a conflict zone. These people were targeted specifically because of American ROE, and because of the way they felt they had to dominate the battlefield. In guerilla war, such overbearing dominance specifically causes such casualties, and greatly weakens America's ability to fight war in the nation.

Certainly you don't look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as shining examples of American military strategy, do you?

Originally posted by inimalist
Yes, creating a situation where they have a weakness to asymmetrical tactics on a battlefield.

Also, given America still is functionally a democracy, they could not do such a thing. The American people don't have a stomach for such a conflict. Further, the Soviets had no problem with such brutality and they were routed handily in Afghanistan, by the very Muj fighters I was saying had good tactics.

Similarly, the Israelis have had many recent engagements with Hamas and Hezbollah, where they have had no problem targeting apartment complexes, schools, and even a united nations building, yet did not achieve clear victories in any of the skirmishes, and in some cases took very clear losses.

American tactics in Libya were much better, and reflect what was done in Yugoslavia and Serbia, but the context on the ground in those situations was much different and they were not fighting a Muj army in either case (it might be argued they supported the Muj in both cases).

The reason, tactically, why I was saying the Muj are so powerful is exactly because they can find and are willing to exploit the weaknesses in the forces they are fighting. If that means targeting innocents (it doesn't always), they will exploit that.

And further, if you want to talk about civilian deaths, America is responsible for death and carnage done to innocent people on a scale Al Qaeda only dreams of being able to accomplish. At least 170 000 civilian deaths in Iraq and over 1 000 000 displaced, ROE or not, that isn't a military that is trying to avoid civilian casualties.

As individual soldiers and on a clear battlefield, sure, Americans know group formations and good military tactics. Take them out of that context into a guerilla situation, these tactics can often become a liability. Remember the blackhawk helicopter footage showing the Americans killing a reporter and a series of civilians driving around a conflict zone. These people were targeted specifically because of American ROE, and because of the way they felt they had to dominate the battlefield. In guerilla war, such overbearing dominance specifically causes such casualties, and greatly weakens America's ability to fight war in the nation.

Certainly you don't look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as shining examples of American military strategy, do you?

You say America is responsible for all of those deaths? So Americans personally killed all of those people? Or was it suicide bombings and murders of innocent people (their own people I might add) by these brilliant strategists you keep talking about that attributed to those. I'm not saying that the American military didn't kill any civilians, but even you must realize what a leap is to throw numbers like that out and attribute them to a military who doesn't engage in that type of warfare.

After the conventional war, when they began hiding behind women and children, American strategy did falter due to the fact that our military does not operate under the sacrifice anyone policy. However, like someone had already stated, that if our policy had been to destroy every one in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the mission could have been accomplished. Thank goodness for everyone, that's not the case.

Soldiers are **** anyway.

^ ???????

Originally posted by socool8520
You say America is responsible for all of those deaths? So Americans personally killed all of those people? Or was it suicide bombings and murders of innocent people (their own people I might add) by these brilliant strategists you keep talking about that attributed to those. I'm not saying that the American military didn't kill any civilians, but even you must realize what a leap is to throw numbers like that out and attribute them to a military who doesn't engage in that type of warfare.

Ok, so there are lots of disputes about actual numbers, but going by the Iraq Body Count project, which is criticized in fact of under-counting civilian deaths, in a period between 2003-2005, 37% of civilian deaths are attributable to American and coalition forces, while 9% are attributable to anti-invasion forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Iraq_Body_Count_project#March_2003_to_March_2005_r
eport

Originally posted by socool8520
After the conventional war, when they began hiding behind women and children, American strategy did falter due to the fact that our military does not operate under the sacrifice anyone policy. However, like someone had already stated, that if our policy had been to destroy every one in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the mission could have been accomplished. Thank goodness for everyone, that's not the case.

indeed, considering how such strategies worked for the Soviets in Afghanistan and Israel in Lebanon/Palestine

EDIT: also, you are referring to Saddam's forces being defeated in conventional military combat, not the Muj. Many former army members joined the Muj or other insurgent groups after the fall of Saddam, but they were not the Muj at the time of defeat.

Originally posted by inimalist
Ok, so there are lots of disputes about actual numbers, but going by the Iraq Body Count project, which is criticized in fact of under-counting civilian deaths, in a period between 2003-2005, 37% of civilian deaths are attributable to American and coalition forces, while 9% are attributable to anti-invasion forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Iraq_Body_Count_project#March_2003_to_March_2005_r
eport

a paper published by costofwar.com Suggests that during the period of 2003-2004 direct civilian deaths were 52% attributable to allied forces while 4% were attributable to insurgents. However, in the period from 2003-2008, those switch to 12% and 11%, with 74% of the killing now being a result of the lack of civil order caused by the invasion in the first place, as criminal and sectarian gangs now mutilated each other. This period of time also represents the largest period of civilian death, by far.

http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/15/attachments/Crawford%20Iraq%20Civilians.pdf

we could also talk about indirect deaths, such as due to losses in infrastructure from American bombing, which did damage at a scale insurgents couldn't possibly. For instance, the infant mortality rate in Iraq is now higher than it was prior to the invasion.

The second Lancet survey in 2006 found 31% of civilian casualties attributable to coalition forces, 24% to other and 46% to unknown. Unknown likely refers mainly to the criminal violence, though may contain some instances of coalition or insurgent attacks, other likely includes insurgent attacks but could also include acts of criminal violence done by known assailants.

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

interestingly, in Afghanistan, the numbers are much closer:

Insurgent: 7,276 - 8,826
Coalition: 6,215 - 9,007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(200
1-to-present)

while the numbers are close, what is interesting is that it was only in 2008 that the insurgents began being responsible for more civilian deaths than the coalition forces.

However, including indirect deaths, civilian deaths attributable to coalition forces raises to 9,415 - 29,007, no similar figure is available for insurgents. It might also be prudent to include civilian deaths due to drone strikes in Pakistan, as they are often performing missions related to the Afghan war, but not really necessary.

Originally posted by inimalist
Ok, so there are lots of disputes about actual numbers, but going by the Iraq Body Count project, which is criticized in fact of under-counting civilian deaths, in a period between 2003-2005, 37% of civilian deaths are attributable to American and coalition forces, while 9% are attributable to anti-invasion forces.


EDIT: also, you are referring to Saddam's forces being defeated in conventional military combat, not the Muj. Many former army members joined the Muj or other insurgent groups after the fall of Saddam, but they were not the Muj at the time of defeat.

It also says that most deaths were attributed to explosive ordnance. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't a lot these "civilians" using eod's? They say they excluded suicide bombers, but it seems to me it would be hard to distinguish who was blown up because of terrorist eod's or military airstrikes, grenades, bombs, etc. Not to mention, how could they distinguish who was actually civilian or not. These guys weren't wearing uniforms to readily identify themselves.

Also, it states that the IBC didn't have to follow up on these numbers either. They simply took them from said magazine, reporter, etc. without having to verify whether the numbers were accurate. It just seems a bit skewed if you ask me

please provide a single study of even dubious credibility that suggest more civilian deaths are attributable to insurgent forces

Originally posted by inimalist
please provide a single study of even dubious credibility that suggest more civilian deaths are attributable to insurgent forces

I'm simply stating that with their oh so cunning strategy, some of these "civilians" actually were insurgents. And like I said, these guys didn't even have to back up their numbers.

cool, if you will only dismiss the only available evidence, I feel my point has been made successfully. Feel free to actually provide some evidence.

EDIT: ugh, wtf is up with these links?

Originally posted by socool8520
I'm simply stating that with their oh so cunning strategy, some of these "civilians" actually were insurgents. I'm picturing a man in a red plaid shirt and green baseball cap leaning on his Chevy, which has an open beer bottle on the hood.

Originally posted by inimalist
cool, if you will only dismiss the only available evidence, I feel my point has been made successfully. Feel free to actually provide some evidence.

EDIT: ugh, wtf is up with these links?

The only available evidence that itself has been argued to be skewed. Not a single one of those has been totally legit. Hell, the top two you chose differed by over several hundred thousand. If that's what you call victory, then by all means congrats. I get where you're coming from with the whole guerilla warfare tactic being effective for these guys. Hell, the US used it against the British early on. But these tactics would only get you so far when push comes to shove.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'm picturing a man in a red plaid shirt and green baseball cap leaning on his Chevy, which has an open beer bottle on the hood.

Not even close sir. Those two colors don't even go together. ugh

Originally posted by socool8520
The only available evidence that itself has been argued to be skewed. Not a single one of those has been totally legit. Hell, the top two you chose differed by over several hundred thousand. If that's what you call victory, then by all means congrats. I get where you're coming from with the whole guerilla warfare tactic being effective for these guys. Hell, the US used it against the British early on. But these tactics would only get you so far when push comes to shove.

no, you are correct, all the available evidence suggesting my point is accurate is not evidence that my point is accurate.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, you are correct, all the available evidence suggesting my point is accurate is not evidence that my point is accurate.

It even says in the links that you posted those counts have been refuted and techniques questioned.

of course there are issues. Do you have better data? no?

ok, so, this is the best available data, and it supports the claim I made. You can dismiss it, cool, your choice, but you certainly don't have an opinion better supported by data.

In general I'd put America at the top of the list in almost every category you could think of.

China is definitely the top contender for second place.

As for ini's arguments...well as my Ethics professor Dr. McNaughton would say: "He's very, very good, but he's wrong."

The Mujahadeen's achievements are nothing special when you consider that the mightiest empires in history have always had trouble in Afghanistan and with insurgencies in general.

Don't kid yourself, if the Mujahadeen were fighting for control of a temperate continental plain region the Russians would have flattened them with or without American support.

The Imperial Russian general who conquered the Uzbeks was interviewed by a British newspaper at a time when the Great Game was at its height and the British feared a Russian invasion of India. He laughed it off for the fact that to get to India (apart from requiring an ABSURD amount of camels for transport) he would need to go through Afghanistan and to go through Afghanistan he'd essentially need to conquer it first, something he dismissed not because the Afghan tribes were powerful but because they were tenacious, they had the home-field advantage, they lived in a dirt poor region where the Russians wouldn't be able to feed themselves, and to top it all off the British would just send them guns.

Originally posted by inimalist
of course there are issues. Do you have better data? no?

ok, so, this is the best available data, and it supports the claim I made. You can dismiss it, cool, your choice, but you certainly don't have an opinion better supported by data.

http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/15/attachments/Crawford%20Iraq%20Civilians.pdf

Here is something else. While it's true that in the first year according to this account, US coalition forces (not just the US), did account for over 52 percent of civilian casualties, I find it odd that the 41 percent of unknown perpetrators weren't split with the anti-coalition forces. Also, it states that within 5 years of the war, the US had brought their overall civilian casualty rating to just 12 percent overall, with 74 percent to unknown perpetrators. Had we been as hell bent as you claim, wouldn't those percentages just stayed around 50 percent?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
In general I'd put America at the top of the list in almost every category you could think of.

China is definitely the top contender for second place.

India, Russia and Europe would still all dominate China imho at this point, unless it was them being the aggressor (China is not invadable I don't think, and none of those nations have an easy assault on Beijing).

Give it 20 years though...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As for ini's arguments...well as my Ethics professor Dr. McNaughton would say: "He's very, very good, but he's wrong."

maybe

I did concede, in fact in the post that was quoted when this thread was revived, that America is inarguably the most powerful military, in terms of numbers, technology, mobility, ability to deploy around the world quickly, etc, pretty much anything you want to name (though iirc Britain has better subs, and in theory, Canadians often win war games against you, using your tech of course, also, us, Russia and the other Scandinavian nations might be better in arctic climates... actually, thinking just numbers, Russia also has more nukes). Largely this is more like a thought experiment so that there is even something to debate beyond "India has a more desert specialized force than America and is therefore more powerful in that theater".

That being said, there is a lot wrong with my argument, not least of which, I've essentially branded all "Muj" groups into a single entity, talking about Ba'athist loyalists conducting attacks in Iraq as being the same as Hezbollah as being the same as the Taliban. In terms of ideological consistency, I may as well talk about the FARC or IRA as being part of the Muj. Additionally, to say the Muj are powerful is more to say that all armies have exploitable weaknesses. The Muj themselves have no broad military strategy, no win condition, and no sustainability. They are driven by rage, hatred and fanaticism. They are only powerful in the way that a deep gash has power over you. Sure, it could be fatal, but it would hardly be accurate to describe it as defeating you.

I'm more talking about asymmetric tactics in a broader sense, and the Muj are the group that I know the most about. Also, its not totally correct to say there is no cohesive Muj group, as there are individuals who have traveled through Yugoslavia, Chechnya and wound up in Palestine or Afghanistan or wherever plying their trade and training new insurgents.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Mujahadeen's achievements are nothing special

arguable

there has never been a conflict in history so asymmetric as the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, barring maybe the colonization of the New World. Though, the difference in tech now is so great that a large part of the American arsenal is actually redundant and useless because of how poorly equipped the insurgents are, which can not be said of Europe in the Americas.

Further, invasions of Afghanistan by the USSR and Iraq and Afghanistan by America played a major part (though not a causal role) in the complete dissolution of the USSR and a major reduction in power and economy in America that they will likely never fully recover from. These were two of the greatest powers the world has ever seen. This would be like the IRA forcing the end of the British Empire, or the failed invasion of ancient Scotland being the end of Rome.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
when you consider that the mightiest empires in history have always had trouble in Afghanistan and with insurgencies in general.

Power is about having the ability to influence the world to your own desires. If it is impossible to do such a thing in Afghanistan, how powerful is the person that tries?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Don't kid yourself, if the Mujahadeen were fighting for control of a temperate continental plain region the Russians would have flattened them with or without American support.

debatable

obviously geography plays a critical role, but I don't necessarily think as decisive as you are saying. I look at it more like Mao described it, with the fish and the sea. The fish, the insurgents, need to move freely in the sea, the people, to be powerful. Basically, so long as the people of a region support you over your opponent, you are able to have a successful insurgency.

Does geography play a role, of course, but not all successful insurgencies have been fought in such places. The American revolution and Russian revolution, afaik, weren't decided by such geographical things. The Iraqi insurgency hasn't relied on terrain to any serious degree. Mao's take over of China even.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Imperial Russian general who conquered the Uzbeks was interviewed by a British newspaper at a time when the Great Game was at its height and the British feared a Russian invasion of India. He laughed it off for the fact that to get to India (apart from requiring an ABSURD amount of camels for transport) he would need to go through Afghanistan and to go through Afghanistan he'd essentially need to conquer it first, something he dismissed not because the Afghan tribes were powerful but because they were tenacious, they had the home-field advantage, they lived in a dirt poor region where the Russians wouldn't be able to feed themselves, and to top it all off the British would just send them guns.

interesting. The pentagon said similar things about invading Iraq during the first Gulf War.

I'd argue such foolish decisions show a complete lack of power.

Originally posted by socool8520
http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/15/attachments/Crawford%20Iraq%20Civilians.pdf

Here is something else. While it's true that in the first year according to this account, US coalition forces (not just the US), did account for over 52 percent of civilian casualties, I find it odd that the 41 percent of unknown perpetrators weren't split with the anti-coalition forces.

So, this paper gets its numbers from Iraq Body Count, and their method of collecting data was by tracking incidents in english language news sources (worldwide), hence why they are thought to under-count, as non-reported deaths are not included (there are also accusations of bias because of only english sources, which also probably indicates the IBC numbers are too low).

The reason unknown is not in either the coalition or insurgent category is that they are precisely that. The perpetrator is not known. You suggest they should be in the insurgent category? I should think not. The vast majority of the unknowns, as the linked paper describes, are as a result of criminal activity that occurs when all of the security institutions of a nation are removed. This criminal activity, along with the sectarian militias that caused huge portions of the violence are not insurgents. They weren't fighting against the Americans, they were fighting other Iraqis, or they were opportunist gangs. Further, in terms of sheer probability, given how many more deaths were being caused by coalition forces, it is more likely that the unknown deaths are really attributable to coalition forces, at least for this period.

Originally posted by socool8520
Also, it states that within 5 years of the war, the US had brought their overall civilian casualty rating to just 12 percent overall, with 74 percent to unknown perpetrators.

Yes, this is an interesting trend that also sort of holds for Afghanistan too. One of the main reasons is that the Iraqi insurgency didn't really start until 2005, and it took some years for the Taliban to organize into a threat in Afghanistan.

The main reason however is the use of American air power. If you look at the month by month chart of civilian deaths IBC has, you see march 03, the initial invasion of Iraq, was the most costly month in the entire war, by far, for civilian deaths. This is because bombing is indiscriminate and disproportionately powerful.

However, this actually comes back to what I was saying much earlier in this thread. This data actually proves that American soldiers do a pretty good job of not killing civilians. It still happens, and they should be criticized for it, but the vast majority of civilian deaths appear to be a result of bombings. Whats more, these spectacular bombings from the air are mentioned specifically as being a motivator for people to take action against the Americans, and bombed out homes and dead bodies prove invaluable as a propaganda tool motivating people to join the insurgency against the Americans.

As I argued with Omega Vision, power is not just a calculation of tech and numbers, it is about your ability to manipulate the world to your will. America's tactical reliance on air bombings in this regard is actually the most detrimental way they could use their power, and thus, actually makes them less powerful. Their continued insistence on this tactic, such as the drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen where scores of innocent civilians are dying, shows a poor use of power, imho, indicating the Americans are not as powerful as their technology or numbers might make them seem.

Originally posted by socool8520
Had we been as hell bent as you claim, wouldn't those percentages just stayed around 50 percent?

I didn't claim you were hell bent, you got defensive because I don't wank off with a bald eagle

My actual statement was this:

Originally posted by inimalist
And further, if you want to talk about civilian deaths, America is responsible for death and carnage done to innocent people on a scale Al Qaeda only dreams of being able to accomplish. At least 170 000 civilian deaths in Iraq and over 1 000 000 displaced, ROE or not, that isn't a military that is trying to avoid civilian casualties.

The only part of that we have been discussing is civilian death as a direct response to violence. Even just considering those numbers, it appears the Americans are responsible for more.

However, if you look at things like indirect deaths, losses of economy, infrastructure, displacement, damage to health, education and any other institutions, the Americans have caused this on a magnitude so great that it would be impossible for insurgents to match. The first month of bombing did so much damage to Iraq that it will be decades before they even catch up to where they were under Saddam. People in Iraq are going to live without water, electricity, lack of food or jobs and with a chronic instability, under the shadow of Iranian influence, that is, if they aren't one of the over 1 000 000 refugees.

The point is, there is no moral high ground here. Is targeting a civilian directly as a tactic morally more reprehensible than targeting an insurgent in the midst of civilians? maybe, though in terms of outcome, given how disproportionately military might is divided in this situation, it might be better to ask: is it morally worse to kill 10 000 civilians as a tactic or directly kill equal numbers, many times more indirectly, and cause catastrophic changes in the lives of millions as a result of tactics?

Like, I don't think there is an easy answer to that, but the certainty with which you express your support of US policy seems to indicate you don't understand the scope of the damage they have done to the civilian populations of Afghanistan or Iraq, and that they continue to do in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.