UPSB v4
Serious Discussion / Which country has the best military?
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 05:58:49
We discussed this question in class the other day, and I would like to hear your opinion on it: If there was to be a straight out 1v1 conflict between two nations today, who would have the best military?
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 09:46:01
I think US has one of the strongest and Japan maybe? I'm not sure :unsure:
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 09:46:15
For patriotism definately the Great British :) But if Russia took out prudhoe bay in alaska and then attacked the USA, Russia would have a good advantage. The US would need to withdraw most of its troops from the middle east (which would take some time). I'm not sure who would ally up with who but im sure most of the European countries would go with the USA (for old times sake) maybe though the eastern european countries would go with Russia out of fear and Europe would be a hotspot. North Korea would by then launch a nuke just for the attention and then everyone else would be launching nukes. Most of us would die. thats why I live in a fallout vault *teehee*
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 09:54:46
Escorpio123 wrote: I think US has one of the strongest and Japan maybe? I'm not sure :unsure:
japan was demilitarized after the WW2 so i seriously doubt it -
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 10:29:58
USA, Russia and China are probably up there.
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 14:44:10
I'm not sure if we're strictly talking just about troops or not, or are we including weapons, technology, vehicles, etc into the definition of a "best military." Overall, I would say that USA has the best military due to the mass amounts of money being spent towards the military, the huge population when compared to many of the developed countries in the world, and the status of being the only superpower of the world. Most European countries, as far as I know, don't spent all that much money on strong militaries since USA deploys troops around the world and sort of acts like the police force of the world, not just in the Middle East. However, I'm pretty sure Israel has the best person-for-person army.
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 15:00:01
NORTH KOREA
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 15:43:01
per capita: Israel, USA is perrty good. But China butt fucks everyone with they're numbers. Being against China and North Korea is an awful idea. Nukes, crazy dictator, huge army in China.
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 16:09:46
America has the most advanced military. China has tons of people to put in theirs. but with nuclear weapons and what not a country could destroy another country, even without a large military force.
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 17:20:26
uh japan is not allowed to keep a military after WW2 same as germany. They have a self-defence force which only engages in peace keeping missions. Its not an official military. USA has the best army with the weapons and forces combined. China has the 2nd biggest army (number of people) in the world. India has the 3rd biggest army (number of people) All three countries are nuclear powers.
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 17:30:33
Well, the number of people in my opinion really doesnt matter. Several Nukes could easily obliterate a country regardless of the size. Therefore, if there were to be a war, between 2 countries, North Korea would most likely come out on top. The 2nd country would be the one with the next largest amount of nukes. Just for you guys to consider, the next war may infact be a cyber war. Controling the internet or any internal network of a country could potentially control the country. Networks basically run the country, when it comes to the military, nuclear plants etc. Therefore, a country like Russia or China would most definately come ontop if there were to be a cyber war. Programmers will basically be the backbone of the countries network defence.
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 18:00:48
China has problem with english. If china makes english their official language they will be strong, really strong. There has been a treaty to limit Nuclear weapons, most of the countries have signed it except India, Pakistan, and Israel. Also North Korea has withdrawn from it.
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 20:12:56
TheAafg wrote: China has problem with english. If china makes english their official language they will be strong, really strong.
This has nothing to do with military strength at all. And mass numbers is not the only factor in deciding a military. Sure, you can have the largest army in the world, but are they trained well? Do they have sufficent food? (since China HEAVILY depends on USA for food imports) Are their weapons efficient? Is their morale high? Numbers isn't the only thing gauging the strength of an army, many other factors affect the strength of a military greatly. -
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 20:36:50
Loanshark;63222]This has nothing to do with military strength at all. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Light wrote: Programmers will basically be the backbone of the countries network defence.
I was talking to light ;) -
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 20:37:00
hmm
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 20:39:50
TheAafg wrote: I was talking to light ;)
It still doesn't make any sense -
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 20:49:08
Dudak wrote: It still doesn't make any sense
most of china's work is mandarian. Which is not understood by rest of the world. This includes programming. -
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 20:50:03
The USA has over 8000 nukes. Russia has over 10,000. North Korea has enough Plutonium to make no more than 12. I think it's pretty safe to say North Korea would not win. So basically the USA or Russia would crush any other countries in a nuclear battle. The USA has the best equipment. China has largest numbers. The UK has the best trained. The SAS pound ass. So, IMO, USA is first, China is second and the UK is third. The amount of money used for the military worldwide in one year could end world hunger for ever.
-
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 22:43:15
TheAafg;63240]most of china's work is mandarian. Which is not understood by rest of the world. This includes programming.[/QUOTE] I literally laughed at this. [QUOTE=JLSpinY wrote: The USA has over 8000 nukes. Russia has over 10,000. North Korea has enough Plutonium to make no more than 12. I think it's pretty safe to say North Korea would not win.
You don't need thousands of nukes to win a war. No one wins a nuclear war. No one. With the case of nuclear weapons, quantity does not matter. You only need 1 nuke to destroy the world, you just have to know where to aim it. Having just 1 nuclear warhead raises your threat level exponentially. After that, the amount of nukes you have doesn't necessarily matter, what matters is the fact that you have nuclear weapons to begin with. The "contest" to see who has the most nuclear weapons in the world can be compared to contests regarding dick sizes. Sure, guys like to show off their huge dicks; however, in the end, it doesn't matter what size your dick is. As long as you still have a dick, you can still reproduce. -
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 23:38:34
Loanshark wrote: The "contest" to see who has the most nuclear weapons in the world can be compared to contests regarding dick sizes. Sure, guys like to show off their huge dicks; however, in the end, it doesn't matter what size your dick is. As long as you still have a dick, you can still reproduce.
LOL. As hilarious as this is, its true XD U.S. probably, but if the economy continues, China might surpass us. -
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 23:40:33
Loanshark wrote: You only need 1 nuke to destroy the world, you just have to know where to aim it. Having just 1 nuclear warhead raises your threat level exponentially.
I agree with Loanshark completely, he is further proving my point. Anyways, when we are comparing the amount of nukes, it doesn't matter is a country has a 100 nukes, or if a country has 10 nukes. These numbers don't matter for shit. One nuclear bomb has the potential to obliterate even the largest of area. Now it matters who attacks first, and where they attack. Comparing who has the most nukes or whatever is pure bullshit. As for the comment of how China's main language or something is Mandarin and something about how programmers should know english or some bullshit, ok listen, programming itself is a goddamn language. It doesnt matter if they need to know english or not. Programming is a universal language that programmers know around the world. China not having English as their main language is totally off topic, highly unnecessary comment. Now it simply matters who can properly launch nukes form their own country and hit their opposing country with precision. This advancement in projectile positioning would determine which country can aim as precisely as possible to maximize damage inflicted. However, since we are talking about nukes, I dont really see why positioning would be an issue, but it is a thought to consider. -
Date: Sat, Feb 12 2011 23:58:51
It doesn't matter who fires a nuke first. If both opposing sides have access to nuclear warheads, no one wins.
-
Date: Sun, Feb 13 2011 00:56:38
Firstly, people seem to have funny ideas about nuclear weapons here. Let's take North Korea and the USA for example. Now the USA has got thousands of nuclear weapons and some/many of these are fusion weapons, which are much more powerful than a fission bomb. North Korea has probably got 'a few' nukes and they are probably fission and much lower yield. So in this example, if North Korea went all out nuclear war, the best they can do is badly damage and irradiate several US cities, while the US could completely and utterly flatten every last square metre of North Korea. So a nuclear war does not end in mutual destruction for both sides. In fact, the only reason the cold war had MAD (mutually assured destruction) was because of the sheer number of warheads the USSR and USA had. It should be noted as well that the USA have got a missile defence system in place and *may* shoot some nukes down, further reducing damage. As for the strongest military, well, in the nuclear age it doesn't really matter. To attack any nation that has a large number of nuclear weapons is suicide. How can you say one has a more powerful army when if they war, they both lose? This is like saying that one person is a stronger chess player than another, even though they only play each other and always draw...
-
Date: Sun, Feb 13 2011 01:01:24
mats MAD doesn't mean that every square inch of the country would be irradiated if NK hit us with all 20 of their nukes then USA would be "destroyed" no question, we'd be completely reliant on aid from other countries, just like NK would be even if they just hit NY DC LA and a few others then it'd be MAD
-
Date: Sun, Feb 13 2011 14:32:57
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/04/05/nuclear_arsenal_060408.pdf - Quite interesting. @Light How could 1 nuke destroy the world? Do you actually know what a nuke is?
This red dot is the area that was destroyed with the most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested. Would you please explain where one would aim this to destroy the world. -
Date: Sun, Feb 13 2011 15:06:17
JLSpinY wrote: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/04/05/nuclear_arsenal_060408.pdf - Quite interesting. @Light How could 1 nuke destroy the world? Do you actually know what a nuke is? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Ivan_bomb.png This red dot is the area that was destroyed with the most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested. Would you please explain where one would aim this to destroy the world.
Have enough nukes launched back at you and you've got a nuclear winter on your hands -
Date: Sun, Feb 13 2011 19:25:56
Mats;63325]Firstly, people seem to have funny ideas about nuclear weapons here. Let's take North Korea and the USA for example. Now the USA has got thousands of nuclear weapons and some/many of these are fusion weapons, which are much more powerful than a fission bomb. North Korea has probably got 'a few' nukes and they are probably fission and much lower yield. So in this example, if North Korea went all out nuclear war, the best they can do is badly damage and irradiate several US cities, while the US could completely and utterly flatten every last square metre of North Korea. So a nuclear war does not end in mutual destruction for both sides. In fact, the only reason the cold war had MAD (mutually assured destruction) was because of the sheer number of warheads the USSR and USA had. It should be noted as well that the USA have got a missile defence system in place and *may* shoot some nukes down, further reducing damage. As for the strongest military, well, in the nuclear age it doesn't really matter. To attack any nation that has a large number of nuclear weapons is suicide. How can you say one has a more powerful army when if they war, they both lose? This is like saying that one person is a stronger chess player than another, even though they only play each other and always draw...[/QUOTE] If North Korea decides to launch all of their "few" nukes at USA, that's definitely more than enough to annihilate them. As with strat said, if NK just hits DC, LA, NYC, and other key places/major cities, USA is pretty much done for. Sure, USA can completely level every single building in North Korea if they wanted to, but at what cost? The damage both countries would recieve would be too great to even distinguish a real winner. [QUOTE=JLSpinY wrote: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/04/05/nuclear_arsenal_060408.pdf - Quite interesting. @Light How could 1 nuke destroy the world? Do you actually know what a nuke is? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Ivan_bomb.png This red dot is the area that was destroyed with the most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested. Would you please explain where one would aim this to destroy the world.
You are reading the word "destroy" too literally. You obviously cannot split the earth into several pieces or physically destroy the earth with just 1 nuclear warhead. But, can you destroy the world economy, ensue chaos, and plunge the world into a state of panic with just 1 nuke? Yes. And besides, the picture is barely relevant. The nuke was tested at some location far away from civilization. Testing a nuclear weapon for research is not the same as launching it with intentions of destruction. -
Date: Sun, Feb 13 2011 20:00:54
@ Loanshark Yeah, I guess I was taking it literally. Anyway, wouldn't the area damaged be less in a populated area as all the buildings will get in the way? Also, a non-nuclear missile aimed at the right place could achieve the same effect as a nuke being used.
-
Date: Sun, Feb 13 2011 23:10:24
JLSpinY wrote: @ Loanshark Yeah, I guess I was taking it literally. Anyway, wouldn't the area damaged be less in a populated area as all the buildings will get in the way? Also, a non-nuclear missile aimed at the right place could achieve the same effect as a nuke being used.
I'm not sure on the physics behind this, but the massive amounts of energy released after a nuclear fission is pretty much uncomparable to the energy required to level off buildings. It's like driving down a highway, and hitting insects on your windshield. Technically speaking, the insect reduces the amount of kinetic energy you car has, and thus hitting the insect slows you down. But, do you actually notice the change? No, because your car has so much more energy than an insect. And yea, I agree with you on the 2nd part. A non-nuclear missle could achieve the same effect as a nuclear one, but the damage done is different. Not only does a nuclear bomb generally cause more damage, but it also leaves radiation which can affect the environment and people for decades after the bombing. -
Date: Sun, Feb 13 2011 23:35:49
JLSpinY wrote: @ Loanshark Yeah, I guess I was taking it literally. Anyway, wouldn't the area damaged be less in a populated area as all the buildings will get in the way? Also, a non-nuclear missile aimed at the right place could achieve the same effect as a nuke being used.
The whole point of a nuclear weapon is that it has a yield that is much more than any conventional explosive. So you cannot have anything like the damage of a nuclear weapon conventional weaponary. Also, on the point of nuclear winters, how many nuclear weapons have already been tested? I'm sure the number must be closing in on 100 and is there a nuclear winter? No. -
Date: Sun, Feb 13 2011 23:52:53
They cause the nuke to explode above the buildings so they don't get in the way since the force is coming from above, high yield explosives aren't detonated at ground level to my knowledge. and no, conventional explosives utilize chemical energy, nuclear explosives utilize nuclear energy, its a whole other level. The diffrence is like the energy released from tearing a piece of paper (physical) to burning it (chemical) the energy released from destroying atoms is a whole other ball game.
-
Date: Mon, Feb 14 2011 04:54:53
Escorpio123 wrote: I think US has one of the strongest and Japan maybe? I'm not sure :unsure:
We are Japan's military. But honestly if no nukes were involved then China would probably wipe the floor with everyone, just due to their numbers. I think the US has too many nukes deployed all around the world for there to ever be a fair fight.