Whats the Best Overall Army in the World?

[leeho730]

"which army would you like to go if you have to choose between these armies?"

For me, U.S. Army.

[Zuwxiv]

The United States isn't a superpower; it's a megapower. A superpower of superpowers. No normal army can defeat the US. (Anyone know where I got that from? PM)

A terrorist organization? Certainly. Practically unable to destroy. But not standard orthodox army.

(Assuming, of course, that is is a war that is supported by the American people. A war not supported would cause the US to eventually withdraw.)

[Major König]

The United States isn't a superpower; it's a megapower. A superpower of superpowers. No normal army can defeat the US. (Anyone know where I got that from? PM)

A terrorist organization? Certainly. Practically unable to destroy. But not standard orthodox army.

(Assuming, of course, that is is a war that is supported by the American people. A war not supported would cause the US to eventually withdraw.)

Aint that the truth. But America is the leader in technology. It's army the most well-trained, well-equipped, fighting force in the world. In no way can any force in the world defeat it on an orthodox battlefield.

[Harbringerxv8]

Actually, for this to be a more accurate poll, the countries should be grouped together in the regional and economic alliances that are currently in place.

For example, the U.S, Canada, Britain, Japan, and Israel would most likely be one major group, based on recent political trends, cultural similarites, and Britain's apathy towards the rest of the European Union. Perhaps South Korea and a number of other, smaller nations, as well.

Another force would be the rest of Europe's fighting forces, which, if banded together, present a highly advanced and highly trained military force, though not necessarily rivaling that of the United States in terms of sheer power. Such a military force, assuming Britain joins the United States, would most certainly be led by France, judging by the current political and military climate of Europe. All French jokes aside, the French have a very annoying ability of resisting invasion or whatnot without armies, and have developed a very cruel sense of justice (see Algeria), making them a potentially significant power, though only if backed up by the rest of Europe. Turkey may or may not be included in this grouping.

Next, the majority of Asian countries, most obviously led by either China or India, would be the third major power. While not as technically sound as their Western counterparts, they have people. Lots and lots of people. And enough guns for most of them. Despite poverty and overpopulation, a strong Asian nationalist group could indeed form, and would be a major deterrent to any invasion, even though history has should that such an invasion by the U.S. or Europe would most likely initially succeed due primarily to air superiority. Holding the territories, of course, is an entirely different matter which depends totally on the amount of public support by the Western population.
That being said, only the United States and a select few countries in Europe even have the ability of getting over there in the first place. This excludes China, which limits them to ground and light-flight based operations, which are suicide against Western technology.

Another fairly cohesive force would be the Middle East. Though there is political and sometimes military infighting in this region, a strong arabic or Persian commander could mold the disparate countries together and pull off some miraculous feat of military brilliance. However, this is doubtful, as the Middle East united can't even defeat Israel (albiet with US support). Their militaries, while numerous and with decent Russian equipment, stand no chance in open combat against any truly modern military.

Africa is too ravaged by disease, war, and famine to bind together, and racial tensions do very little to help them. Seriously, though, who's worried about sub-saharan africa starting a world war? Though we could do to keep them from wiping each other out a la Middle Ages.

I apologize for not including Australia and many of the other Pacific nations, but I do not profess to know anything about their military prowess, or international organization.

However, I was in Fiji during a military coup, and the death toll was somewhere around 17. So...yeah.

I also apologize for not including South and Central America for the same reasons (not the coup part, btw).

Antarctic penguins are most likely not a threat.

[Rapax]

The United States isn't a superpower; it's a megapower. A superpower of superpowers. No normal army can defeat the US. (Anyone know where I got that from? PM)

Oh how they love to pat themselves on their backs.

[ApathyEcstasy]

It is true that I am intrigued with America's "cool toys" but I like America mostly because of their tactics and technology. They train their soldiers with this almost virtual like programs, they are researching on robotic technology to fill in the gap on America's ample amount of soldiers. There are so many amazing things that America is doing to increase their military strenght. "No wonder the U.S. is free to fight war after war, decade after decade, whether by proxy, or directly." Usually America fight wars if it was necessary or if they were asked for help. But sometimes when America goes to war it is usually not necessary at all, its the president's choice. Hence the second Gulf War because of President Bush. He should send all of the troops back since they are getting killed by cowradly bombs. Sorry getting of the topic there.

what about wars of opposition to idealogy..korean war and vietnam war..fighting against the filthy communists...why? because they're filthy communists..what about the contra mercenaries hired by the US and used in south america..not subject to humanitarian laws of war...how convenient....is it also true mercenaries are currently being used sparsely in the middle east? i am not totally sure but i have heard that as well..hmm what else...gulf war 1...saddam asked for permission to invade a country..the US says that they don't have a position on that issue and that they won't get involved....a little wink wink nudge nudge to saddam that he can invade without US repercussions...so iraq invades, kuwait, was it?..then the US moves in and BAM, knocks saddam on his ass....what should we call that? baiting, or lying?...anyways..hmm what else..america tried to invade canada too in the war of 1812...and took the southern border states from mexico....the US's existence is based on war...war of independence against the brits..and from there on out it was war after war after war....baiting and lying and expanding

[ApathyEcstasy]

Actually, for this to be a more accurate poll, the countries should be grouped together in the regional and economic alliances that are currently in place.

For example, the U.S, Canada, Britain, Japan, and Israel would most likely be one major group, based on recent political trends, cultural similarites, and Britain's apathy towards the rest of the European Union. Perhaps South Korea and a number of other, smaller nations, as well.

Another force would be the rest of Europe's fighting forces, which, if banded together, present a highly advanced and highly trained military force, though not necessarily rivaling that of the United States in terms of sheer power. Such a military force, assuming Britain joins the United States, would most certainly be led by France, judging by the current political and military climate of Europe. All French jokes aside, the French have a very annoying ability of resisting invasion or whatnot without armies, and have developed a very cruel sense of justice (see Algeria), making them a potentially significant power, though only if backed up by the rest of Europe. Turkey may or may not be included in this grouping.

Next, the majority of Asian countries, most obviously led by either China or India, would be the third major power. While not as technically sound as their Western counterparts, they have people. Lots and lots of people. And enough guns for most of them. Despite poverty and overpopulation, a strong Asian nationalist group could indeed form, and would be a major deterrent to any invasion, even though history has should that such an invasion by the U.S. or Europe would most likely initially succeed due primarily to air superiority. Holding the territories, of course, is an entirely different matter which depends totally on the amount of public support by the Western population.
That being said, only the United States and a select few countries in Europe even have the ability of getting over there in the first place. This excludes China, which limits them to ground and light-flight based operations, which are suicide against Western technology.

Another fairly cohesive force would be the Middle East. Though there is political and sometimes military infighting in this region, a strong arabic or Persian commander could mold the disparate countries together and pull off some miraculous feat of military brilliance. However, this is doubtful, as the Middle East united can't even defeat Israel (albiet with US support). Their militaries, while numerous and with decent Russian equipment, stand no chance in open combat against any truly modern military.

Africa is too ravaged by disease, war, and famine to bind together, and racial tensions do very little to help them. Seriously, though, who's worried about sub-saharan africa starting a world war? Though we could do to keep them from wiping each other out a la Middle Ages.

I apologize for not including Australia and many of the other Pacific nations, but I do not profess to know anything about their military prowess, or international organization.

However, I was in Fiji during a military coup, and the death toll was somewhere around 17. So...yeah.

I also apologize for not including South and Central America for the same reasons (not the coup part, btw).

Antarctic penguins are most likely not a threat.

if the US fights an offensive war against a modern nation, don't expect the EU to join in..and if it was a war of expansion or conquest, i can easily see the EU taking economic measures to hit the US where it hurts..the wallet......if the war was defensive, that would be another matter..and "pre-emptive strike" has been all used up so don't expect anyone to believe it anymore..remember the boy who cried wolf? well i guess this boy happens to have carriers and fighter jets too..but the moral of the story is still the same.....hmm what else....if the US were to try anything in asia, china and india would most likely have russia's help seeing as how russia takes great interest in its previous asset nations in central asia

[Oldgamer]

what about wars of opposition to idealogy..korean war and vietnam war..fighting against the filthy communists...why? because they're filthy communists..what about the contra mercenaries hired by the US and used in south america..not subject to humanitarian laws of war...how convenient....is it also true mercenaries are currently being used sparsely in the middle east? i am not totally sure but i have heard that as well..hmm what else...gulf war 1...saddam asked for permission to invade a country..the US says that they don't have a position on that issue and that they won't get involved....a little wink wink nudge nudge to saddam that he can invade without US repercussions...so iraq invades, kuwait, was it?..then the US moves in and BAM, knocks saddam on his ass....what should we call that? baiting, or lying?...anyways..hmm what else..america tried to invade canada too in the war of 1812...and took the southern border states from mexico....the US's existence is based on war...war of independence against the brits..and from there on out it was war after war after war....baiting and lying and expanding

AE,

You need to learn what a "mercenary" truly is, apart from the Hollywood version. I've been a "mercenary", and I could have made a lot more money on Wall Street. From the standpoint of money, a mercenary just as well stay home.

Mercenaries (at least, the American variety), go to war not for the money, but to serve their country once again. At least six of the times I've been overseas, since my discharge from the Army, I've been there to help people defend themselves, and to defend them from people that my government wouldn't even consider helping (like Rwanda, during the Clinton Administration ... he ordered us not to go, so we went anyway, at our own expense!).

Most of the Contra mercenaries weren't Americans. They were indigenous peoples to that region, and were very undisciplined and hard to control. Their primary motivation was loot and revenge. For myself, I went into Nicaragua to help control a genocide against the Miskito Indians, being perpetrated by the Sandanista Government of Nicaragua, at the direct order of Daniel Ortega (who wanted the Miskito's resource-rich region). I trained Miskitos to fight against this genocide, and did more than my share of offing Sandies. I wasn't paid anything.

Last year, I trained 18 Iraqi men in the fine arts of sniping, prior to the assault on Fallujah. I love these guys, and only one of them has been lost since I trained them. By the way, I never felt at risk in Iraq, even though I generally went about unarmed and on my own. The Iraqis are a wonderful people, and deserve a chance to rid themselves of the cruelty of the past. Money? I could have made more working security at a nuke plant ...

"Mercenary" is such an emotion-laden word, that using it is an attempt to close off an argument. After all, who's going to defend a mercenary?

The United States has a large population of highly-trained, motivated, and ... in many cases ... battle-hardened veterans. Many of these people are contacted by the government, and asked to help out with a situation in a critical part of the world.

But they fight for money. How awful ...

I remind you that the entire US military is paid. What military isn't? After all, the word "soldier" has an etimology from the Latin, and means "one who is paid."

[ApathyEcstasy]

AE,

You need to learn what a "mercenary" truly is, apart from the Hollywood version. I've been a "mercenary", and I could have made a lot more money on Wall Street. From the standpoint of money, a mercenary just as well stay home.

Mercenaries (at least, the American variety), go to war not for the money, but to serve their country once again. At least six of the times I've been overseas, since my discharge from the Army, I've been there to help people defend themselves, and to defend them from people that my government wouldn't even consider helping (like Rwanda, during the Clinton Administration ... he ordered us not to go, so we went anyway, at our own expense!).

Most of the Contra mercenaries weren't Americans. They were indigenous peoples to that region, and were very undisciplined and hard to control. Their primary motivation was loot and revenge. For myself, I went into Nicaragua to help control a genocide against the Miskito Indians, being perpetrated by the Sandanista Government of Nicaragua, at the direct order of Daniel Ortega (who wanted the Miskito's resource-rich region). I trained Miskitos to fight against this genocide, and did more than my share of offing Sandies. I wasn't paid anything.

Last year, I trained 18 Iraqi men in the fine arts of sniping, prior to the assault on Fallujah. I love these guys, and only one of them has been lost since I trained them. By the way, I never felt at risk in Iraq, even though I generally went about unarmed and on my own. The Iraqis are a wonderful people, and deserve a chance to rid themselves of the cruelty of the past. Money? I could have made more working security at a nuke plant ...

"Mercenary" is such an emotion-laden word, that using it is an attempt to close off an argument. After all, who's going to defend a mercenary?

The United States has a large population of highly-trained, motivated, and ... in many cases ... battle-hardened veterans. Many of these people are contacted by the government, and asked to help out with a situation in a critical part of the world.

But they fight for money. How awful ...

I remind you that the entire US military is paid. What military isn't? After all, the word "soldier" has an etimology from the Latin, and means "one who is paid."

you totally missed my point there soldier. my point was not that mercenaries are bad because they are paid to do what they do, my point is that the contras were an easy way for the US to achieve certain goals in south america without having to worry about public opinion consequences..you said yourself the contras were foreign..well that just makes it even better for the US to hire them to do what they did because the mercenaries don't have to be court martialed for commiting crimes against humanity

edit: and please avoid assuming that my knowledge is based on hollywood, if you wish to see one of the many sources of information about this i can dig up for you, here's one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

edit2: "According to human rights group Americas Watch, the Contras engaged in "violent abuses ... so prevalent that these may be said to be their principle means of waging war."

"The Contras, who initially received financial and other forms of support from the Argentine military regime and then U.S. CIA, mounted raids which targeted northern Nicaragua, particularly coffee plantations and farming cooperatives."

[Oldgamer]

AE,

I was in Nicaragua. I was there. The United States wasn't the only country that was fielding "mercenaries". Most of the foreign mercenaries were hired by other Central American countries ... including Mexico ... which were worried about the Sandanista Revolution, and the sheer size of Daniel Ortega's army (as it turns out, in the last election, Ortega was still calling for an invasion of Costa Rica).

Most of the mercenaries who got a US paycheck were American veterans. Ther were British, French, and German mercs on the the US payroll, also. The atrocities committed by some of the foreign mercs would have been infinitely greater, had it not been for the presence of these people. I personally don't know of a single atrocity committed by American and European mercenaries. If you can document one ... and I don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source of information ... then I will change my mind on this. When faced with facts, I will change my mind.

By the way, I'm totally in favor of professional mercenary forces, who do their training and store their heavy weapons on US military bases. But that's for another thread. I don't want to take this one too far afield.

[Cliomhdubh]

the us

[ApathyEcstasy]

AE,

I was in Nicaragua. I was there. The United States wasn't the only country that was fielding "mercenaries". Most of the foreign mercenaries were hired by other Central American countries ... including Mexico ... which were worried about the Sandanista Revolution, and the sheer size of Daniel Ortega's army (as it turns out, in the last election, Ortega was still calling for an invasion of Costa Rica).

Most of the mercenaries who got a US paycheck were American veterans. Ther were British, French, and German mercs on the the US payroll, also. The atrocities committed by some of the foreign mercs would have been infinitely greater, had it not been for the presence of these people. I personally don't know of a single atrocity committed by American and European mercenaries. If you can document one ... and I don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source of information ... then I will change my mind on this. When faced with facts, I will change my mind.

By the way, I'm totally in favor of professional mercenary forces, who do their training and store their heavy weapons on US military bases. But that's for another thread. I don't want to take this one too far afield.

you are hilarious, wikipedia is only one source among countless that all say the same thing, if you took 1 minute of your own time to look into it for yourself, you'd see what i'm saying

edit: but then again, why would you make any effort to seek information that goes against your own point of view...you seem to be one of those people that dismisses facts outright without any thought, specifically when they defy your own opinion

[Oldgamer]

you are hilarious, wikipedia is only one source among countless that all say the same thing, if you took 1 minute of your own time to look into it for yourself, you'd see what i'm saying

edit: but then again, why would you make any effort to seek information that goes against your own point of view...you seem to be one of those people that dismisses facts outright without any thought, specifically when they defy your own opinion

I have looked into it. Your ad hominem about me being hilarious doesn't change a thing. I was there and you weren't. Son, you haven't got a clue.

I would suggest that you take your "edit" and look into the mirror. I'm perfectly capable of changing my mind when I encounter credible facts.

What's the matter? Can't find a source that talks about an American atrocity? The "countless" sources could be wrong, you know. Indeed, they could be biased. Did you ever think about that?

No, I didn't think so ...

[ApathyEcstasy]

The "countless" sources could be wrong, you know. Indeed, they could be biased. Did you ever think about that?

The Reagan administration had been providing covert assistance to the Contras since November 1981, but the 1982 Boland Amendment blocked further military aid when it was discovered that the CIA had supervised acts of sabotage in Nicaragua without notifying Congress. The amendment, effective December 1983 to September 1985, prohibited the CIA, Defense Department, and any other government agency from providing any further covert military assistance. The Reagan administration circumvented this ban by using the National Security Council, which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert support. The NSC proceeded to raise private and foreign funds for the Contras. In addition, proceeds from the arms sales to Iran were used to purchase arms for the Contras in an arrangement instituted by Colonel Oliver North, aide to National Security Advisor John Poindexter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

just fyi, up to this point, you're the only one that hasn't provided any facts that back up your claims....anyone can just as easily say online that they were "insert occupation" and did "insert task" during "insert event"..and even if you're not lying, what makes you think that being a soldier makes you privy to all the political information? oh wait, it doesn't..

[Farnan]

The U.S. Military is unquestionably the greatest military in the world. We dominate the seas more completely than even the Royal Navy of old. Our Airforce, Navy Aviation, and Marine Aviation dominate the skies to such a degree it makes the Luftwaffes air supiority in Poland look like a slight advantage. Our force projection capabilities are second to none. Our Army and Marine Corps. will dominate against any foe you put them against. The US Military dominates the world in a such a way that no one or 18 combined foes can defeat us.

[Orretje]

Sure the US have one of the best armies, but not of all times. Right now in this time, it's worth nothing after fighting took place (Iraq, Afghanistan). It's a bit like the Roman subjugation of Germania, they won but couldn't maintain control so in fact they lost. Also if the US would wage war on a lot of combined foes (depending on which) they could cripple the US by embargos and such.

Great Britain used to have more control of the seas than the US now, and the US also can't just fly everywhere and drop bombs without getting shot down, noone can.

[Oldgamer]

The Reagan administration had been providing covert assistance to the Contras since November 1981, but the 1982 Boland Amendment blocked further military aid when it was discovered that the CIA had supervised acts of sabotage in Nicaragua without notifying Congress. The amendment, effective December 1983 to September 1985, prohibited the CIA, Defense Department, and any other government agency from providing any further covert military assistance. The Reagan administration circumvented this ban by using the National Security Council, which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert support. The NSC proceeded to raise private and foreign funds for the Contras. In addition, proceeds from the arms sales to Iran were used to purchase arms for the Contras in an arrangement instituted by Colonel Oliver North, aide to National Security Advisor John Poindexter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

just fyi, up to this point, you're the only one that hasn't provided any facts that back up your claims....anyone can just as easily say online that they were "insert occupation" and did "insert task" during "insert event"..and even if you're not lying, what makes you think that being a soldier makes you privy to all the political information? oh wait, it doesn't..

AE,

I don't really want to argue with you, on this one. We've been getting along rather nicely, up until now.

Among the many sources that I use for information is the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. I consider this source to be definitive on most issues. Some of the things you've earlier said are backed up by EB. Some are not. I will believe EB before I will accept the chaos of Wikipedia.

The "Reagan Administration" paragraph you quoted doesn't talk about American atrocities. It talks about the overall legality of Reagan's contra effort, post-Boland. In hindsight, President Reagan was correct in providing covert funding for the contra movement, since it brought down the single most destabilising influence in Central America for many decades, the Sandanistas.

To the extent that President Reagan provided funding and weapons for the contras, the United States was indirectly responsible for any "atrocities" committed by foreign mercenaries. But I am telling you that my personal experience in the whole affair is that American mercs did not commit atrocities against anyone, and it feels very much like you are telling me that my personal experience in the region was in error.

One of the most fascinating things about being an American merc is the level of information that one is privy to. You see, a merc is being asked to put his life on the line, without any legal standing whatsoever. If captured by the enemy, he may be tortured and/or put to death at the whim of his captors. Therefore, before you go, you demand information. To the extent that it is possible, you are given the information ... including who is ordering what ... that you demand.

My own personal briefing came from a gentleman and fellow-patriot that we all lovingly remember as Lt. Col. Oliver North. He's Ollie, to us ..

[werewol9]

I think it's really hard to say wich army is the best, there are too many factors; for example, the battlefield, the economic situation of each country who are in the war...

USA have a real military superiority with money (reducting education credits to give them to army, what that ****???!!!), number of soldiers and warfare. On the other side I think that they didn't have the best regiments; many countries have elite rgts that are really better than US'. Someone have posted that US Marines are the best, they had a cooperative training program with the French Foreign Legion in French Guiana, they resigned after two weeks, too hard, too wounded soldiers. For my part I think that the best unit is the Foreign Legion, they are really good, their training is hard, really **** hard, intructors learn them to be pitbulls, they can endure many suffers without say anything, they must obey to the death. More, they are THE first line unit, if a légionnaire is killed in action there is nobody to advise, they have only one family; the Legion. The légionnaires are not allowed to have girlfriend (no women in legion), to buy a car or a house, they haven't social live, only Legion. Leginnaires are not french (the french legionnaire are called "gauls" or "gaulois" in french), so they have different cultures, religions...; the solution? Instructors learn the that their nationality is Legion, their religion is Legion, Legion is all for them. That are the things wich do of the Foreign Legion the best unit in the world, the hardiest training and the total and inconditional devotion to the Legion.

Also, France is not trying to have the greatest army in the world, but units who can assume the defence of the country and the UN missions.

[Farnan]

The French Foreign Legion also attempted a Coup d' etat against the French Government, something the American Military never did.

[Carach]

no contest really, no indivudual nation as such a powerful military.

Being a brit myself im proud of my country's past though, the last 'empire' and major power of the old times...

USA the first major power of the new times..

China have a rapidly expanding military though, however they dont have the logistics part done yet...and technology is certainly not on their side.

If europe became a 'super-state' (aka just one big country) we would have a pretty damn powerful military to rival that of america in some aspects.

the comment a few posts above mine about US controlling the seas even more than the royal navy did however is complete rubbish.

royal navy completely dominated the seas. larger and greater than most of the other world leaders put together at the time. Without that we would not of had the largest empire the world has seen, all around the world.