- 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 10:17 am to MC5601
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:17 am to MC5601
quote:
You're an idiot. That is literally the number of men residing in each country, not men in the military
Might want to rethink your post. You are as wrong as the poster you are calling an idiot.
0
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:20 am to MC5601
quote:
You're an idiot. That is literally the number of men residing in each country, not men in the military.
Free advice... before you call someone an idiot, make sure you understand what you're talking about.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:25 am to boom roasted
At least he is closer than the person he is mocking.
And he didn't rail against the graphic being useless for follow up posts because of a mistake.
And he didn't rail against the graphic being useless for follow up posts because of a mistake.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:27 am to hawgfaninc
Russia only have like 3 or 4 modernized divisions
that Soviet era shite ant going to cut it
while Nato keeps getting the good shite
that Soviet era shite ant going to cut it
while Nato keeps getting the good shite
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:44 am to hawgfaninc
Japan is sending playstations....
Posted on 3/2/15 at 11:01 am to TheDude321
quote:
Um, South Korea may have double the North's population but, other than that, the North has pretty much all other advantages in a head-to-head match-up.
LOL
SK's allies would give them everything they need. China is getting very tired of NK. I don't see that regime lasting another 10 years IMO. I think China at this point just doesn't want to deal with the NKorean ex-pats and aid to that country if they fall. They are already overpopulated.
And NK's people are worthless and would flee the minute they had the chance.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 11:07 am to TheCaterpillar
On top of that, SK has a very modern and well trained army. NK has a well trained army but is mostly equipped with 50s era armaments. They have numbers on their side but they are woefully behind SK in technology and modern weaponry.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 11:11 am to hawgfaninc
So Russia has 15,000 tanks.. that they can't afford to put diesel in.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 11:14 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
On top of that, SK has a very modern and well trained army.
The ROK army, along with the pre-Mandela SA army and Israel are the only post-WWII armies that could credibly stay on the battlefield with a UN Security Council military force (and add, possibly, Turkey to that mix).
Probably the finest small army in the world - possibly excepting the IDF.
(Keep in mind that, North Vietnam, on paper much weaker than South Korea, handled France and held their own against the U.S until 1968.)
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 11:15 am
Posted on 3/2/15 at 11:18 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
(Keep in mind that, North Vietnam, on paper much weaker than South Korea, handled France and held their own against the U.S until 1968.)
Yep. Despite the lies of the media, the Tet Offensive was a huge mistake on the North's part and led them to suffer one of the most complete and total battlefield defeats in the annals of military history.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 11:40 am to hawgfaninc
If Russia was smart they'd just build a bunch of tesla coils and Sam launchers around their border and camp out
Posted on 3/2/15 at 11:52 am to 3deadtrolls
quote:
So Russia has 15,000 tanks
I doubt even 5000 of them can move under their own power.
Russia is much better at assassination of political enemies than any sustained military conflict of a credible foe.
Their days as a legit military superpower are long past.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 12:11 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
Also, the aircraft carrier faces extreme vulnerabilities in future warfare and has tremendous costs. They allow flexibility but are by no means necessary to exert regional power or even to effectively combat an enemy that does possess them.
?
They give you an instant way to project air superiority at almost any region of the world.
They are also not going charging in with carriers on the battlefield so you don't need them for regional power, just support in the air. Once you can establish multiple air strips and project tactical and functional air superiority then the carriers can leave.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 12:17 pm to Alan Garner
quote:
They give you an instant way to project air superiority at almost any region of the world.
They are also not going charging in with carriers on the battlefield so you don't need them for regional power, just support in the air. Once you can establish multiple air strips and project tactical and functional air superiority then the carriers can leave.
If it ever did come to a conventional war in Europe between NATO and Russia, carriers would be useful in protecting convoys crossing the Atlantic from the US. But as far as the actual fighting on the ground, which as the map stands now would take place mostly in Eastern Europe, carriers would not be much use. Instead the role of fighting the air war in central and eastern Europe would fall on land based aircraft operating out of places like Germany & Italy.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 12:18 pm
Posted on 3/2/15 at 12:23 pm to BamaScoop
quote:
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.
Jesus
Posted on 3/2/15 at 12:28 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Europe between NATO and Russia
Absolutely. But that NATO/Old Warsaw Pact war would be a giant landmass battle with would probably be more tactical missile strikes (NATO) against massive tank battalions (Russia). Air power would be more primarily support based but it would be ok for the most part considering how many NATO air based there are.
Could see the carriers being part of naval blockades.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 12:37 pm to Alan Garner
quote:
Absolutely. But that NATO/Old Warsaw Pact war would be a giant landmass battle with would probably be more tactical missile strikes (NATO) against massive tank battalions (Russia). Air power would be more primarily support based but it would be ok for the most part considering how many NATO air based there are.
Could see the carriers being part of naval blockades.
Perhaps a blockade in the MED to bottle up the Russian Navy in the Black Sea. But really a full naval blockade of Russia would be impractical and would really not be of that great a benefit. Russia is pretty self sufficient when it comes to wartime resources. They make all their won armaments and they have things like coal, oil, iron, and other metals needed to maintain wartime production.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 12:52 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Russia is pretty self sufficient when it comes to wartime resources.
do the people in Russia's military need to eat?
Posted on 3/2/15 at 12:52 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
They make all their won armaments and they have things like coal, oil, iron, and other metals needed to maintain wartime production.
This is, to a certain degree, true, Darth, on the industrial and energy side - but they have problems with meeting food demands, domestically. They may be able to provide subsistence food for a few months, year or so, they could be brought to heel if a blockade significantly affected their food supply.
Just last year, that "food import ban" backfired on Putin, as domestic prices soared.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 3/2/15 at 12:56 pm to BamaScoop
quote:
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.
there are plenty of people with pride and direction who don't need the military ...
cheny/bush/clinton/romney/obama all dodged or didn't serve ... seems to have worked out well for them ...
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News