- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The 35 most powerful militaries in the world
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:12 am to Guava Jelly
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:12 am to Guava Jelly
quote:
Seriously, is it necessary to have ~7,000 nukes? What's the point?
Necessary? Not really but still rational. Those numbers are partially a holdover from the massive stockpiles attained during the Cold War. But such numbers also allow you to project complete nuclear deterrence even if you are victim to a first strike. We can deliver mass devastation through ICBM's, bombers, and subs, and having the numbers we have permits any of those options to achieve complete destruction of enemies.
0
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:12 am to CadesCove
quote:
The EMT-7 electromagnetic pulse (EMP) creator has been used in testing but not fitted to T-90s in active service.
Awesome.
If they ever did deploy the EMT-7 and we met them on the battlefield with them having that device, it could spell serious trouble for our very electronic reliant forces.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:26 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
If they ever did deploy the EMT-7 and we met them on the battlefield with them having that device, it could spell serious trouble for our very electronic reliant forces.
Wouldn't it zap their tanks at the same time? I don't think EMPs discriminate.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:32 am to CadesCove
quote:
Wouldn't it zap their tanks at the same time? I don't think EMPs discriminate.
Depends on the design I suppose. If they can figure out a way to deploy such a weapon that targets certain areas without affecting their own vehicles, which is what they're trying to do I'd assume, then this could be a very dangerous weapon. The fact they've not deployed this system tells me they've not worked out the kinks thankfully.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:39 am to cave canem
quote:
Calling bullshite off the bat. The US in no way has 145,000,000 people in the military, that is almost 50% of our population.
It is the number of male citizens a country can draft in the event of a SHTF war. Not current standing military.
I think the age number is like 18-45.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:41 am to Darth_Vader
What do we got? What do we got!? We've got one HEAVILY ARMED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, man!
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:41 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
If they ever did deploy the EMT-7 and we met them on the battlefield with them having that device, it could spell serious trouble for our very electronic reliant forces.
Was under the impression that EMP would mostly be devestating to civilian infrastructure.
I thought the military spent a LOT of time and money electronically hardening our essential equipment. Especially tanks.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:45 am to ChewyDante
quote:
Umm, you don't know what you're talking about. Tanks are still extremely important for land warfare and particularly for the geopolitical context Russia exists in. There's a reason the US still has so many as well.
+1
What was that old NATO joke that was still around at the end of the Cokd War?
Two Soviet tank commanders met at their destination in Paris. One asks the other: "So, do you know who won the air war?"
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:47 am to lsu480
quote:
Since when has the US had 145 million people in the military? Are you retarded or did you not even glance at the infographic?
Moron, It means people of age to serve in the US if we had to start the draft.
I actually think we should bring the draft back during peace time, it was a huge mistake to get rid of the draft. I think every man in the US should have to serve in the military for two years once they turn 18 years old and if the defer for college they should have to take ROTC and serve their time after graduation. If they fail to graduate and drop out of college they have 30 days to enlist and start their two years as an enlisted man. It would help give these punks some direction and pride in their nation.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:48 am to Volvagia
quote:
It is the number of male citizens a country can draft in the event of a SHTF war. Not current standing military.
Actually, it is male and female.
quote:
Country Comparison > Manpower available for military service. Definition: This entry gives the number of males and females falling in the military age range for the country and assumes that every individual is fit to serve.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 9:49 am
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:49 am to hawgfaninc
That is a LOT of submarines floating around out there 
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:51 am to BamaScoop
quote:No thanks
actually think we should bring the draft back during peace time, it was a huge mistake to get rid of the draft. I think every man in the US should have to serve in the military for two years once they turn 18 years old and if the defer for college they should have to take ROTC and serve their time after graduation. If they fail to graduate and drop out of college they have 30 days to enlist and start their two years as an enlisted man. It would help give these punks some direction and pride in their nation.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:55 am to ChewyDante
quote:
Tanks are still extremely important for land warfare and particularly for the geopolitical context Russia exists in. There's a reason the US still has so many as well.
Meh. Tanks are expensive, attractive targets. For that matter, so are aircraft carriers - but at least the carriers are protected against a whole spectrum of non-nuclear threats.
Tanks are as vulnerable as a newborn baby against aircraft. And, everyone and his brother has a man-portable ATGM that can ruin a tanker's day.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:57 am to hawgfaninc
So what this tells me is we have to lure other militaries into the water 
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:00 am to yankeeundercover
quote:
So what this tells me is we have to lure other militaries into the water
Not too keen on our militaries capabilities?
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:09 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
quote:
Tanks are still extremely important for land warfare and particularly for the geopolitical context Russia exists in. There's a reason the US still has so many as well.
Meh. Tanks are expensive, attractive targets. For that matter, so are aircraft carriers - but at least the carriers are protected against a whole spectrum of non-nuclear threats.
Tanks are as vulnerable as a newborn baby against aircraft. And, everyone and his brother has a man-portable ATGM that can ruin a tanker's day.
All very true. But to win a war you have to take and occupy land. That's why you need both air power and combined arms on the ground. That's means a combination of infantry, armor, and artillery. And those combined arms need the other facets of the combined arms team. Infantry needs armor and artillery. Armor needs infantry and artillery. Artillery needs armor and infantry. And all of them need air support. And air power alone cannot win a war.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 10:12 am
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:09 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Meh. Tanks are expensive, attractive targets. For that matter, so are aircraft carriers - but at least the carriers are protected against a whole spectrum of non-nuclear threats. Tanks are as vulnerable as a newborn baby against aircraft. And, everyone and his brother has a man-portable ATGM that can ruin a tanker's day.
The expense varies. And for offensive military operations, they are vital. There is really no downplaying this. Any ground based platform has vulnerabilities. The Soviets lost an astronomical number of tanks in WWII, they were extremely "vulnerable," but they were the lifeblood of the Soviet successes.
In Gulf War I, US armor carried the day against the traditional military opponent in the ground war. In Gulf War II they were also the tip of the spear. Depending on the style of conflict, the value of armor can vary. But if you wish to be prepared and capable of large scale offensives or any kind of defense against large scale offensives, you need armor.
Warfare constantly changes in regard to advantage/disadvantage for offensive/defensive operations and individual platforms. Tanks are as vital to successful ground operations now as they have been in the modern warfare age. There advantage/disadvantage will fluctuate as countermeasures and innovations come and go, but they are still central elements to conventional ground warfare, make no mistake about it.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 10:11 am
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:13 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
But to win a war you have to take and occupy land.
I agree. But we don't do that, anymore. We "nation build" until we take more casualties than the U.S. public wants, then we leave.
quote:
That's means a combination of infantry, armor, and artillery. And those combined arms need the other facets of the combined arms team. Infantry needs armor and artillery. Armor needs infantry and artillery. Artillery needs armor and infantry. And all of them need air support. And air power alone cannot win a war.
Obviously, I'm not going to disagree with any of that.
I was just messing with you and Chewy.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:15 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Tanks are expensive, attractive targets.
Indeed they are.
But the reason why they are so attractive is that they are so useful.
Tanks are the modern analogue of an old fort. And I mean the New World era type like St. Augustine, not a Wild West fort. At least they have the decency to be mobile so they can go where you need them as opposed to a fort that sits there.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:15 am to cave canem
quote:
Calling bullshite off the bat. The US in no way has 145,000,000 people in the military, that is almost 50% of our population
This is literally the manpower residing in each country, not men in the military. This is the number of people who could potentially serve if need be.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 10:33 am
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News