GLOBAL FIRE POWER LIST

[Mikal]

By the way how is India in 4th?
They are still buying 60-80yr old battle ships off Britain that Britain doesn't want anymore due to being so out dated, in-efficient and just plain old.. :trust:

[Hubbestubbe]

It's a bit meaningless to have a list like that. What does it say? How many soldiers the countries got? How many missiles? How good educated they are? How many they can kill within an hour? How good every part of the military cooperate? It's a shitload of factors that depend in war.

[Teddy]

Military Strength is theoretically determined by

Number of ordinances (bombs, missiles)
Military Assets Available - From Humvee to Aircraft Carriers, total active count of assets ready/actively deployed
Deployment Coverage - How much of the world is covered by said nations reach. (I.E Monitor Ocean, Overseas Bases Etc.)
Active Nuclear Arsenal - How many active war heads does said nation have, and how many are deployed strategically.
Standing Personnel - How many active duty soldiers does the said nation have enlisted.
Reserve Personnel - How many reserve duty soldiers does said nation have on standby.
Training - How effective is the training provided to said nations soldiers.

[Mikal]

Military Strength is theoretically determined by

Number of ordinances (bombs, missiles)

The weaker force could have anti-missile technology.

Military Assets Available - From Humvee to Aircraft Carriers, total active count of assets ready/actively deployed

Aircraft carriers arnt that good of an asset, sure you can take your jets and invade another country with them and always have the landing strip 100 miles from the target destination, but a country only really needs 1 of them and alot of good pilots.

Deployment Coverage - How much of the world is covered by said nations reach. (I.E Monitor Ocean, Overseas Bases Etc.)

If that were true, why is China, Russia and America super powers when they only have one big continent?

Active Nuclear Arsenal - How many active war heads does said nation have, and how many are deployed strategically.

Nuclear missiles are only a deterrence to stop other nations with nukes from nuking the defending country, for example America wouldn't nuke the UK because the UK could nuke them back, same with Russia, China and other countrys with nuclear technology.

Standing Personnel - How many active duty soldiers does the said nation have enlisted.

Reserve Personnel - How many reserve duty soldiers does said nation have on standby.

Personnel mean nothing if not all of them are trained to be elite, or the nation your personnel are attacking has extremely good defences round it's coasts.

Training - How effective is the training provided to said nations soldiers.

THIS is what power should be done by, TRAINING! A force of 10 soldiers could wipe out a force of 1000 soldiers if said 10 soldiers have more experience and training, same with battle ships, jets or missiles, it all comes down to how good the nation is at using it's resources, not how many they have, this is how the super power list should be, but it's not about that.

For example India's military has a huge lack of training for it's soldiers, it's basicly 'Heres a gun, defend the country' compared to countrys that have special forces and a long military background.

[Exterminator]

Mikal, contrary to popular belief the Indian armed forces are actually well trained. As has been proven in the military battles that India took part in, India prevailed by a huge gap.
Plus, Indian soliders are famous for actually being determined, you might of heard about how 180 Indian soldiers singlehandedly defeated a invasion army of 2000 troops in 1971.(With WWII rifles while the Pakistanis marched with tanks and machine guns..).

The Indian army is highly under-funded(As is the case for anything related to the Indian Govt.) but the training isnt so bad, wherever you got that information is wrong

[Teddy]

The weaker force could have anti-missile technology.

Bombs as well. You are forgetting some top nations have aircraft are not detected by anti-air/missle defenses.

Aircraft carriers arnt that good of an asset, sure you can take your jets and invade another country with them and always have the landing strip 100 miles from the target destination, but a country only really needs 1 of them and alot of good pilots.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Aircraft Carriers are escorted by a nuclear sub, 3 other battleships(United States 'strike' group formation). They have the ability to move a full air raid to any location in the world. They can also transport thousands of people into war very quickly. It is also the most valuable asset to the United States Navy (other than Seals) and also to the Royal Navy. Aircraft Carriers are floating cities, with enough fire power to remove a small country off the map. US Carriers have their own zip codes, they normally contain more than 5,000 Sailors and Marines on board. The Royal Navy also has similar setup to them.

If that were true, why is China, Russia and America super powers when they only have one big continent?

The United States has assets all over the world. United States the largest presence made in the world. China and Russia not so much, firepower isn't military strength so I don't know.

Nuclear missiles are only a deterrence to stop other nations with nukes from nuking the defending country, for example America wouldn't nuke the UK because the UK could nuke them back, same with Russia, China and other countrys with nuclear technology.

The UK couldn't nuke the US, because we have the ability to shoot a nuke down before it leaves your continent. The United Kingdom, China, Russia and few other countries have this ability as well, also countries who have nuclear ability, so your statement is again false.

Personnel mean nothing if not all of them are trained to be elite, or the nation your personnel are attacking has extremely good defences round it's coasts.

Not everyone needs to be special forces. United States Army break their men down, build them up, train them in boot camp. They are not trained to be special forces, they are trained in their area, and in combat. A basic combat training is all that is needed, and it is up to the officers to guide the foot soldiers to be use strategically in order to gain the advantage over the enemy and eliminate the enemy.

THIS is what power should be done by, TRAINING! A force of 10 soldiers could wipe out a force of 1000 soldiers if said 10 soldiers have more experience and training, same with battle ships, jets or missiles, it all comes down to how good the nation is at using it's resources, not how many they have, this is how the super power list should be, but it's not about that.

In which United States and Russia would still be at the top, in addition most nations soldiers are trained by United States forces, so most are well suited. Your statement here isn't to far off. The only group single able to disarm a nation is a Navy Seal, but 1000 soldiers, bit unrealistic mate. Even a team of Seals would be challenged unless it was 1000 100% untrained average joes with a gun. While Navy Seals are at the top of world wide special forces; United Kingdom Special Forces (British Commandos), Russian Spetsnaz, are shortly behind them.

While it does also play into the fact China has the largest standing army, but they (the men) are old and aged. So while its true the pure number isn't really always effective but still and some other of your points may not be as far off as some.

[~Legend~]

By the way how is India in 4th?
They are still buying 60-80yr old battle ships off Britain that Britain doesn't want anymore due to being so out dated, in-efficient and just plain old.. :trust:

A major contender on the world stage in coming years.

India's got a lot to show... it's a massive nation and it shouldn't (on paper) be too long before they get the formula right and match their size in output.

Any industrial prowess generally gets transformed to have positive impacts on other aspects of a country, like its demographics and resource base in the current climate.

Mikal, contrary to popular belief the Indian armed forces are actually well trained. As has been proven in the military battles that India took part in, India prevailed by a huge gap.
Plus, Indian soliders are famous for actually being determined, you might of heard about how 180 Indian soldiers singlehandedly defeated a invasion army of 2000 troops in 1971.(With WWII rifles while the Pakistanis marched with tanks and machine guns..).

The Indian army is highly under-funded(As is the case for anything related to the Indian Govt.) but the training isnt so bad, wherever you got that information is wrong

Not to mention their commandos and special defence units.

Also in recent years their air force has been developing considerably.

[Mikal]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Aircraft Carriers are escorted by a nuclear sub, 3 other battleships(United States 'strike' group formation). They have the ability to move a full air raid to any location in the world. They can also transport thousands of people into war very quickly. It is also the most valuable asset to the United States Navy (other than Seals) and also to the Royal Navy. Aircraft Carriers are floating cities, with enough fire power to remove a small country off the map. US Carriers have their own zip codes, they normally contain more than 5,000 Sailors and Marines on board. The Royal Navy also has similar setup to them.

The UK currntly has no aircraft carriers, the last one (HMS ArkRoyal) which led it's last operation with the US (Was a huge training exercise involving both British and American destroyers/carriers and some other small military vessels), the UK's currently building 2 carriers which will be the worlds most advanced (according to an American show I watched on the Military channel about modern weaponry), however the UK currently is not concerned about not having any carriers, theres the nuclear submarines, 2 of them I know of anyway, 1 is in the Falklands, 1 is in Scotland and another is also being built, if a country like the UK doesn't seem concerned about not having carriers till 2015 then I'de assume they arnt that important, to the UK anyway. You say that they are capable of transporting thousands of troops, but thats what the UK uses it's military planes for, wether they are jumping out with parachutes or landing on a runway they are still capable of transporting as many people as a carrier is, as they are currently using them in Iran and Afghanistan.

You say I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm talking about how Britain currently operates, and thats quality over quantity, you can have 13 aircraft carriers, but I assure you they wont compare to the UK's Elizibeth class ones currently in construction and due to be finished in 2015, in the meantime theres the nuclear subs and support from the rest of Europe, by 2050 it's said the Royal Navy will once again be a dominate power of the sea's, it will have to since the UK's population is growing at an extreme rate, if you understand what I'm getting at, then again I assume you think I'm a retarded British 'kid' that makes stuff up in order to make his country sound better, I'm only talking facts so you'd be wrong.

The United States has assets all over the world. United States the largest presence made in the world. China and Russia not so much, firepower isn't military strength so I don't know.

ASSETS, not colonys.

The UK couldn't nuke the US, because we have the ability to shoot a nuke down before it leaves your continent. The United Kingdom, China, Russia and few other countries have this ability as well, also countries who have nuclear ability, so your statement is again false.

The ability to shoot a missile before it leaves the country? Talk less crap please, the missile has to be within a certain radius before it is detected, military satallites or not. I'm not saying the UK would try to nuke the US, I was using it as an example as I'm British, your American and this discussion is between us, call it Russia if you'd like, but the ability to shoot down nukes like you suggest would make them useless, thats why countrys have more than 1 to fire, you might stop 1, or maybe even 10, but one would eventually hit it's target, same with any country with nuclear power.

Not everyone needs to be special forces. United States Army break their men down, build them up, train them in boot camp. They are not trained to be special forces, they are trained in their area, and in combat. A basic combat training is all that is needed, and it is up to the officers to guide the foot soldiers to be use strategically in order to gain the advantage over the enemy and eliminate the enemy.

I saw the 'basic training' US soldiers have with that other video in the news section, y'know where he's on the hill running round like a clown in obvious enemy fire.. :roll:

In which United States and Russia would still be at the top, in addition most nations soldiers are trained by United States forces, so most are well suited. Your statement here isn't to far off. The only group single able to disarm a nation is a Navy Seal, but 1000 soldiers, bit unrealistic mate. Even a team of Seals would be challenged unless it was 1000 100% untrained average joes with a gun. While Navy Seals are at the top of world wide special forces; United Kingdom Special Forces (British Commandos), Russian Spetsnaz, are shortly behind them.

While it does also play into the fact China has the largest standing army, but they (the men) are old and aged. So while its true the pure number isn't really always effective but still and some other of your points may not be as far off as some.

Most nations are trained by the US? Not the UK.. I'de like you to know a high ranking British soldier was murdered in the US whilst on his way to a boot camp to carry out training for some US soldiers, can't remember where it was, saw it on FBI Files.
Only the Seals can wipe out a small army? So your assuming the seals are better than the SAS or Royal Marines?
In 2001 I think it was the SAS wiped out a 200 strong army of African thugs who were armed to their teeth and holding 5 British soldiers hostage, there was 1 casualty, around 150 of the thugs were killed, the rest ran or was arrested.

To be honest with you, I think your extremely big headed or up your own arse to say the US is always up top and the best in the world, which is extremely untrue, I've not once tried to turn the discussion into a 'who is better' argument but it seems you leaned that way, you need to remember every country has it's special forces who are all highly trained and all capable of wiping each other out.

One thing we can/should all agree on is that China is on the right path to world wide domination and the first place on the super powers list, which is a bunch of shit anyway. (The list not China).

[Teddy]

I'm not gonna even argue with you. You get facts from American shows and not raw stats, yes I might have been wrong about the Royal Navy and the carriers. If they were useless, they wouldn't make one then.

You are entirely missing the point I stated and trying to play my trucks bigger, which I don't play that game, sorry haven't been 12 in 8 years.

[Mikal]

I'm not gonna even argue with you. You get facts from American shows and not raw stats, yes I might have been wrong about the Royal Navy and the carriers. If they were useless, they wouldn't make one then.

You are entirely missing the point I stated and trying to play my trucks bigger, which I don't play that game, sorry haven't been 12 in 8 years.

I haven't been 12 in 6 years, what does that have to do with this?
The fact is you insist America is better than the rest of the world at everything involving the military.

[Alan.Wake]

Homemade Taliban bombs > American troops. xD

[Batta]

The fact is you insist America is better than the rest of the world at everything involving the military.

Like if we still have to be proud about how many nukes & such s**t we got. I would be proud if I had less of those things.

[Mikal]

Like if we still have to be proud about how many nukes & such s**t we got. I would be proud if I had less of those things.

Maybe man, I wouldn't want the UK to lose it's nukes though, they are one main thing that stops us from being invaded, I just see a small army being better, why? Theres more time to train each soldier until he can't be trained no more, for example the SAS isnt huge, but every soldier inside it is said to be the worlds most elite. :roll:

[Batta]

Maybe man, I wouldn't want the UK to lose it's nukes though, they are one main thing that stops us from being invaded, I just see a small army being better, why? Theres more time to train each soldier until he can't be trained no more, for example the SAS isnt huge, but every soldier inside it is said to be the worlds most elite. :roll:

I meant we shouldn't be claiming our big armies and such (not saying you, Mikal, are). They should be used and thought just for defence purposes. I don't think having 394857934 nukes + 3248023489809423089 tanks ships and such is meant for defence..

[Mikal]

I meant we shouldn't be claiming our big armies and such (not saying you, Mikal, are). They should be used and thought just for defence purposes. I don't think having 394857934 nukes + 3248023489809423089 tanks ships and such is meant for defence..

Look at it this way, countries only have big militarys if they plan on invading other countries, countries that don't do invading, have smaller militarys and high-tech technology to make it impossible for others/big militarys invading them, the UK is building 2 aircraft carriers, why? By 2050 it's said the UK will have to start invading smaller surrounding countrys such as Ireland and Iceland in order to make room for the ever expanding population, (mainly thanks to immigrents and relaxed immigration laws in Britain), if I were the UK's PM, the UK would be losing around 10million people, that would be immigrents going back to where they came from.

It's so hard to get a job right now.