Which country has the strongest military?

Not by that much, though, and a nuclear exchange wouldn't end the war between the American and Russian militaries. After all the nukes were expended, each side would still have core military and governmental assets in place. The US would still have an invicincible navy (and we have installations all over the world) and an invincible SF contingent. As long as we could continue collecting fuel for nuclear and hydrocarbon-based power sources, we would win the nuclear aftermath.

 

I don't think anyone would 'win' the nuclear aftermath.

 

Your judgement about my dining choices is as inaccurate as your judgement about everything else.

And I understand drooling hatred and jealousy without reading the words. You're another US hater. Losers all.

And that you are gullible enough to believe lying liberal media about US soldiers losing in Vietnam tells me all that anyone needs to know about your judgement. We had no "military" tactics. We had political tactics. We lost no "military" battles in Vietnam. The politicians gave up the war. We lost 50,000 KIA in a more than 12 year long war. The other side lost between 2 million and 7 million DEAD. Our "loss' was expensive. Their "WIN" was,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Don't forget the 50 cal and the mark 19.

 

Obviously humanity would lose, but in terms of strategic victories, the US core military and governmental assets would "win" out over the Russians I think.

 

The Ma Deuce is an awesome weapon, but not so effective against a human wave where a .50 round is worth more than the target. Rate of fire is too slow for human wave and barrel overheat would be a major problem. And there is no need to blow them apart, just kill or wound. Now if they had any wheels or tracks mixed in, then the M2 would be nice to have. The Grenade launcher. YES, very good. 300 grenades per minute can put a thought into a non thinking head. A kill radius of about 6 or 7 meters and a wound radius to maybe 20 meters can put a big hole in a wave.

 

Some people like to fantasize about the US losing something.

 

I bet I could get more kills with a semi-auto M4 on top of a hill with an ACOG than the guy with a SAW on the front lines...

 

Fifty cal is for targets of opportunity. Maybe a spotter sees a medic or someone with a rocket launcher. Just pepper him with a fifty cal. Of course, we'd have snipers with fifty cal sniper rifles, so maybe it's a overkill...

 

Just reminds of the movie "War Games"

 

Ordinarily, absolutely. Against a human wave attack like in Korea? The most rounds out equal the most kills in that kind of idiot tactic. Remember the front THOUSANDS of the human waves had no weapons. Sticks, clubs. They were there to absorb the defenders ammunition.

 

This is near impossible to measure, without more context.

Moroever, there are nations on that list, that would never make the cut.

While others are left out, who do.

That said, it is clearly going to be the US/Russia/China, for different reasons.

 

US troops are probably the strongest at being rapists.

Does that count?

 

Vietnam was lost purely because of political reasons. I even remember seeing a show on the Vietnam war talking with former Viet Cong commanders and they said that the US should have won the war except that they refused to do certain things. The one general (or leader I forgot his specific rank) said that had the US done three things the war would have been won by the US fairly early on. First was to take out the railroads leading into china that were supplying them, the second was that we dropped tons of bombs on the Ho Chi Men trail but didn't put enough soldiers on the ground to make sure that any remaining supplies didn't get through and there was a third item but I am blanking on it now. It probably had to do with the stupid no bombing zones. What (*)(*)(*)(*)**** thought that was a good idea was an idiot of the supreme order, it was probably McNamara. We won every battle in Vietnam and even the Tet offensive was only successful politically but was a horrible loss militarily for them. That war was lost only because of the incredibly inept leadership at the Washington level. Our soldiers and the guys on the ground did their job though and won the battles.

I don't see you you can say we got kicked in Korea because we pushed them back up and were planning to march all the way north before they all of a sudden sued for peace.

Regarding China they are a paper tiger. They don't have much high end hardware to speak of and they have only recently begun to build up their military with high tech gear. Also it takes over a decade to train experienced officers and a couple of decades to get experience top tier officers. This isn't the olden days when you can just give a guy a gun and point to a target and tell him to shoot. Today's military is highly complex and requires lots of training just to make sure that everyone is working together in sync. They have lots of soldiers but they are poorly trained and there is literally no way to move them anywhere. Chinas road system is limited to its coastline and urban areas and it has no navy to speak of yet. Maybe in 20 years China will be a threat assuming the don't implode but definitely not now. We could take out their manufacturing and their agriculture resources in a matter of weeks and they would simply grind to a halt as there was no way to feed and supply that huge army.

Edit: How the hell did Turkey end up on that list......or Israel for that matter.

 

I think they were afraid of China and USSR involvement which was happening anyway. Either way, dumb decision on our part for even getting into a war half scared of it. An easy US victory if we had the balls to press our luck with China and the USSR.

 

I have to give you credit for at least being honest about your bias and hate.

 

One of the major railheads which was the transit points of weapons and machinery was in Lao Cai,, right on the Chinese border, in the far north west of Vietnam. The American military didn't bomb Lao Cai for the simple reason its proximity to China. They were very fearful of planes straying into Chinese air space, therefore giving reason for a full blown conflict with China. Some doubted China would have entered the Vietnam War because of ongoing tensions between China and Vietnam. Russia was the major supplier of military hardware to Vietnam.

Now,,, it's very difficult to define the Vietnam War as "in Vietnam". It encompased a much wider area than that. All of Indochina was involved, especially Laos. The American military was bombing northern Laos three months before the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in August 1964. Xieng Khoaung province in the north was being bombed as early May 1964.

There is a little know battle which the Americans didn't win. In fact it was the site of the largest single loss of life of American Airforce personnel. Lima Site 85, or Phou Pha Thi as the Lao call it was a signal relay station for Rolling Thunder,, it was one of the major guidance systems for Rolling Thunder. It was perched on a mountain in Laos a couple of kilometres from the North Vietnamese border, in Huaphan province. Some say, on a clear day you could see Hanoi.

18 or 19 dead USAF technicians plus 1400 Hmong, Lao Royal Army and Thai mercinary casualties. The number of NVA isn't clear,, possibly in the thousands. It also has the reputation of a helicopter (American) shooting down a fixed wing aircraft (North Vietnamese), the first to do so.

Another battle lost were the ongoing battles to control the Ho Chi Minh trails (notice the plural). Had America controlled the Ho Chi Minh trails their chances of wining in Vietnam would have been much better.

 

None of us will probably ever know. The next battle between the superpowers will spell the end of humanity!

 

Russian honour? Thats something new?

 

Well, I would say that the Japanese army is honorable... But Japanese people are actually pretty honorable in general - hell, even the Yakuza mobilised to help people during the various natural disasters.

China's army is dishonorable, considering they're supposed to be the "people's liberation army". More like "peasant's liberation army" (researched China's "communist" revolution).

The pre-Stalin Soviet Red Army was honorable. And the modern Russian army? Not so much.

 

Pound for pound, I would say Israel - or Switzerland if it was on the list. However in terms of pure manpower and training combined, the USA all the way.

 

There's no such thing as 'pound for pound' in warfare. If you weight 1 pound and I weigh 100 pounds then you lose.

 

In terms of training and discipline, I believe that Israel or Switzerland are the strongest - if 100 Swiss or Israelis took on 100 US troops - they would probably win. But of course our larger numbers seals the deal in the long run.

 

The Swiss and Israelis might be stronger, but US troops have been in active duty for 11 years. I couldn't objectively say that the Swiss and Israelis are stronger.

 

Not true. Smaller/less powerful forces have beaten larger/more powerful forces.

Germany took out France during WW2, for instance.