~The World's Strongest Militaries~

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?

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_report

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_report

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_(2001-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?