Which region do you think has the greatest military prowess?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by NickPhamUK, Sep 25, 2013.

?

Which region do you think has the best military prowess?

  1. North America

    22 vote(s)
    75.9%
  2. Europe + Russia

    4 vote(s)
    13.8%
  3. Asia (minus Middle East)

    2 vote(s)
    6.9%
  4. Middle East + Africa

    1 vote(s)
    3.4%
  1. NickPhamUK, Sep 25, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2013

    NickPhamUK macrumors 6502

    NickPhamUK

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    #1
    Which region do you think has the greatest military power combined in theory (I'd list some MAJOR countries in each region):
    (1) North America: USA, Canada, Mexico
    (2) Europe: Russia, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, Greece, Belgium, Denmark
    (3) Asia (minus Middle East, plus Australia & New Zealand): China, Taiwan, India, Japan, Pakistan, North/South Korea, South East Asia countries etc.
    (4) Middle East + Africa: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, UAE, South America, Nigeria, Lybia

    Take into account of military strength (nukes, troops count, vehicles/air force/naval/spy/other technologies), economic power, logistics, location (easy to defend etc.).

    (1) USA has and edge in technology considering how much they spend on military annually and their experience in warfare is great. They also have multiple military bases around the world and their naval/air force is the most powerful so deploying units to various locations is easy. North America is hard to invade consider it's far from both Asia and Europe.

    (2) Europe & Russia are ahead in terms of combined economic power (total GDP), and they are also experienced in wars. They have the most number of tanks/armoured vehicles combined. Countries like UK, France and Russia also has high technology, nuking & military power. Russia has lots of natural resources.

    (3) Asia leads in man-power and natural resources. India and China alone makes up of 1/3 world population. China (1st), India (3rd), North Korea (4th), South Korea (6th), Pakistan (8th) are in top 10 countries with the most active military personnel. Japan, China, India and South Korea also have strong economic/military power.

    (4) Turkey, Iran and Egypt are also in top 10 countries with the most active military personnel. Being constantly at war, Middle East countries have strong military power and countries like Israel are not behind the western world in terms of technology and nuking. Countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Qatar can supply its neighbours with oil and economic back-up.
     
  2. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #2
    I'm sorry but I would rather measure my countries by their quality of life and happiness, than by how many times it can destroy the planet. That is just pure macho BS.:eek:
     
  3. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #3
    Sure you'd do so, you live in the Netherlands. :p

    Oh wait, you're right nonetheless...
     
  4. TheHateMachine macrumors 6502a

    TheHateMachine

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #4
    I waffled between NA and Europe + Russia.

    I think the tipping point is the nuclear aresenal, power and stockpile of conventional explosives and the fact that the US has a functioning railgun and walking upright terminator robits! Not to mention the fact that an invasion of America would involve dealing with civilian weaponry that outnumbers the blades of grass in the US. :p

    ----------

    You got a point man, but this is PRSI and well... you know.
     
  5. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #5
    Wuhh? When did this happen? Last I heard, the Navy was only talking about it, not actually building it.
     
  6. TheHateMachine, Sep 25, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2013

    TheHateMachine macrumors 6502a

    TheHateMachine

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #6
    There are a few videos on YouTube of the railgun being fired. A lot is fairly old and no new footage has been seen.

    A Newer video is called "US Navy's SUPERWEAPON - The Railgun" on Youtube.

    So far they have projectiles that reach Mach 5 and travel about 5 Miles. One of the ideas for munitions is to have a device that activates above an airfield and it spins while spitting molten copper to try to disable equipment and vehicles that are not under shelter.
     
  7. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #7
    Europe & Russia #1 because of smart leadership, coupled with seemingly unlimited resources (natural and human). I almost dropped there ranking for the Swiss being neutral and French being French.

    North 'Murica is #2. US military spending and technology coupled with Canadian fighting prowess earns them the silver.

    Asia is #3. China is the heavyweight in this group, but they've had their (_!_) handed to them in nearly every major conflict in modern times. Japan got neutered after WWII.

    Middle East in last place. Sure they fight the most, but they lack both technology and resources. The combatants are very skilled at improvisation, but McGyver is no match for an M1 Abram.
     
  8. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    Are these regions going to go to war with each other, under some scenario?
     
  9. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #9
    I suggest invading Kamchatka, to prevent the awarding of "continent bonus" units.
     
  10. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #10
    1: North America. The US alone takes the cake. They have the best power projection, best technology, best training and most combat experience. In any kind of war over some area of ocean, or parts of disputed land, no one else can field as much military force as the US.

    The only Country ever to have an Aircraft Carrier half as good as a Nimitz is France, and they only have one, and its still smaller and slower than a Nimitz, I'm talking about the Charles De Gaulle, Europe's only Aircraft carrier. And as far Nimitz's goes, the US has 10 of the damn things, plus over 200 more supporting warships and submarines.

    2: Europe: The British and the French make up the bulk of Europe's Deploy able military outside Russia.

    3: Asia, China is the big dog here. But has inferior technology and no power projection ability.
     
  11. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    Except for Italy's 14,000 ton Giuseppe Garibaldi, Italy's 27,000 ton Cavour, Spain's 27,000 ton Juan Carlos, Russia's 55,000 ton Kuznetsov, and the UK's 22,000 ton Illustrious (and 2 70,000 ton carriers under construction).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country
     
  12. Happybunny, Sep 25, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2013

    Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #12

    That made me really smile.
     
  13. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #13
    But you forget the Spanish and the Italians have no blue water capability, those carriers can't be supported far from home without foreign aid. The Charles De Gallue is easily supported by the Blue water capability of the Marine Nationle. Something Italy and Spain don't have. Russia would also struggle to deploy the Kuzetsov around the world, and be able to support it.

    Even still, most of these carriers are carrying inferior planes in comparison to French and American offerings.

    Also, the Illustrious can only carry helicopters are this point. And weather or not England will even retain their new carriers is still in question, theres a good chance they might be sold off, due to the huge anti military spending movement in the UK.

    The Kuznetsov carries outdated planes, and Russia's ability to support her in a conflict is questionable at best.

    Aren't the Italians still using Harriers? Scary!

    Pretty much none of those carriers match the ability of the Charles De Gallue or the American Nimitz Ships.
     
  14. Mousse, Sep 25, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2013

    Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #14
    True, true. BUT they're far inferior to most countries when it comes to military leadership. Australia isn't known for it's naval prowess. But they managed to defeat the US in a war games exercise.

    'Murica is relying too much on technology and not enough on grey matter to win wars. The Aussie sub was a 2nd rate diesel. I shudder to think what nuclear powered attack sub with a brilliant commander could manage.
     
  15. G51989, Sep 25, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2013

    G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #15
    I wouldn't say the leaders of Americans military are inferior, they're just so used to operating in cold War Mode that they are having some trouble adapting. In the second world war, at least during the early parts. The American leaders showed brilliant tactics and strategy.

    They aren't the first to sink a US ship in war games either, A Desial submarine running on electric motors is a huge threat.

    The US Submarines have sunk many a ships in war-games as well, to say American commanders are inferior is an insane thought.

    Not everyone wins all the time, you'll always win some and lose some.

    Submarines are a hard kill, no matter what nation they hail from. To say an American commander couldn't pull off the same stunt just because their American seems silly.

    Not everything is perfect.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

    War is never totally one sided, and yes thinking outside the box can help, and somehow mishaps do happen. Nothing is perfect.

    Though I would have personally blew that Chinese submarine out of the water if it were up to me in that situation.
     
  16. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #16
    The Americans were underdogs in WWII. The Germans had the best technology AND best leaders. The only Allied general who gave the Germans fits was Patton. And that was mainly because he took initiative that the leadership didn't approve.

    The American commander would have relied upon the silent running ability of the sub instead of thinking outside the box.

    Here's a real world, fairly recent example of stupid military leadership: Shock and Awe. Talk about a huge waste of resources. I remember watching it on the news and thinking. Dayum, those cruise missles are $1Million a pop. Old school WWII naval barrage with fancy high tech weapons. Same thinking, new toys.

    If they only targeted important communication, logistics and military structures, it would have been an impressive strike. All they did was pour a billion dollars down the drain to level Baghdad. A few MOAB's or a few more Daisy Cutters would have had the same results and waste less resources.

    I'm not saying ALL American military leaders are incompetents. Colonel John A Warren III was absolutely brilliant. In the first Gulf War, he effectively won the war before it even had a chance to start.
     
  17. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #17
    I think they/he made a big mistake going after refineries, power plants, and water treatment plants, etc. It made little or no difference in getting Iraq out of Kuwait, and, caused a lot of unnecessary civilian suffering.
     
  18. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #18
    I'm talking about the early years of the wars in the Pacific, the USN pulled off some pretty crazy victories.

    How do you know that? You don't think Americans Commanders are stupid do you? These people train for big portions of their lifes to command these submarines and surface ships, I highly doubt they'll just run into any situation without analyzing and thinking about it.

    There are currently about 240 Active combat ships/submarines in the USN, are you saying all of their commanders are incapable of thinking outside the box?

    And silent running isn't always such a bad thing, American Submarines are very much ahead of any other submarine out there.

    American Subs get plenty of Kills in Wargames as well, just because a couple sub captains manage to score a hit on a USN surface ship does not mean its command staff is useless. Finding submarines is very difficult, even older ones.
     
  19. Peterkro, Sep 26, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2013

    Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #19
    I know I'm going to regret getting involved in a military porn thread but Hey Ho.

    It's all very well having huge carriers to project power but when they come up against something like the DF21-D anti ship ballistic missile which can destroy a carrier with one shot you have a major problem.In a stand off with China that means no carriers within 2000km.Although the U.S. is scrambling to improve it's anti ballistic missile seaborne defences it's behind and in a confrontation like that the only thing to do is take out GPS satellites (and China may have a version that is not reliant on GPS) and that means all out war.Resulting ultimately a fiery end for us all.

    "United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it" if it worked as theorized.[21]
    The United States Navy has responded by switching its focus from a close blockade force of shallow water vessels to return to building deep water ballistic defense destroyers.[21] The United States has also assigned most of its ballistic missile defense capable ships to the Pacific, extended the BMD program to all Aegis destroyers and increased procurement of SM-3 BMD missiles.[22] The United States also has a large network optimized for tracking ballistic missile launches which may give carrier groups sufficient warning in order to move away from the target area while the missile is in flight.[23]
    Use of such missile has been said by some experts to potentially lead to nuclear exchange, regional arms races with India and Japan, and the end of the INF Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union, to which the People's Republic of China is not a party"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#cite_note-autogenerated1-24
     
  20. MyMac1976 macrumors 6502

    MyMac1976

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    #20
    This is why carriers never leave home without an entourage. Carriers have very little anti ship and anti missile that's what their little buddies are for.
     
  21. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #21
    While I agree the U.S. is scrambling to up it's anti ballistic missile capability it appears as of now the worlds only ballistic anti-ship missile is going to be very,very hard to stop.
     
  22. MyMac1976 macrumors 6502

    MyMac1976

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    #22
    Missiles that don't hit anything are in essence missiles stopped
     
  23. jeremy h macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    I think it was an American civil war general who said (and I probably paraphrase in a cartoon character way) that they way to win was to get there the 'fastest with the mostest'.

    I'd argue with the idea of superhuman Tutons invincibly sweeping all before them (this is a forum after all!). History just doesn't back it up. The German armies certainly got there the fastest - but with the mostest?

    A lot of the German technology and more importantly their implementation and use of the technology was mediocre at best. When they came up against well trained, motivated and more importantly well prepared enemies they often came unstuck. Their military industrial capacity wasn't great right up until Speer took over in the latest stages of the war.

    The idea that the US were underdogs in the war also doesn't stand up - the reason that Churchill was desperate to get the US involved was because it's vast landmass, natural resources, industrial base and supply of massive amount of young manpower would inevitably and quickly (once they'd got their act together) out muscle any European nation. (Even the USSR).

    American forces always seem to learn fast. I wouldn't under rate them. I don't think we'd stand much of a chance. Hopefully we'll never find out.
     
  24. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #24
    They were underdogs against the Japanese until after Midway. The Zero was pretty much an unbeatable opponent until John Thach thought up a tactic to counter their superior maneuverability. The underdog always has to out think the other guy to even out the playing field.

    We also dodged a bullet because our carriers weren't in port during the raid on Pearl Harbor. We learned PDQ that old school battleships were relics of the pass and carriers was the future because we adopted the enemies thinking.

    Today, 'Murica are no longer the underdog in any war. There's way too much reliance on superior technology and firepower. Predator UAVs using a million dollar missiles to take out a $20,000 pickup truck; that's the leadership thinking today. Back in WW2, it would have been an American Company stalling a German Division with clever tactics and smart used of bottlenecks.

    I think he was paraphrasing Sun-tzu: "Rapidity is the essence of war" (Art of War, Chapter 11)

    While most of the European countries were expecting another WWI trench war, the Germans decided upon a new tactics: Blitzkrieg. Good leadership compensates for a lot of short comings.

    The lack of resources prove Germany's undoing more than anything else. Rommel wouldn't have lost North Africa had he not run out of fuel. When the Allied tank unit planned to attack a German Panzer unit, they wanted a huge numerical advantage because they German tanks were superior (although not by a lot). The Panzers were better trained and better lead.

    The Allied forces the Germans later on was the same Allied forces the faced earlier during the war. The major difference was the change in tactics. They used the Blitzkrieg tactics against the Germans (at least Patton did). Instead of scissors vs rock, it was big rock vs small rock.

    During the early stages of the War, American forces were getting pushed around like a 98lbs weakling by the Germans beach bully. In the first major encounter with the Germans we got slaughtered 5 to 1. Leadership, technology, discipline...in every measurable way, the Germans were superior.

    Good thing, too. Or I'd be typing this in German now. Or Japanese.:D
     
  25. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #25

Share This Page