Who would you say has the strongest collective military between these?

Not really asking the 'who do you think would win a war between', as sometimes it is not even a plausible question, but I am curious to think who you feel would have the strongest military overall, between the following pairings. When I say 'strongest', factor out any nukes, I am speaking of how good and effective their navy is, what sort of record their armies have, how good their comparable air force would be, what sort of numbers they could call on, who has the edge in terms of the standard of tech, etc, etc. Those are the kinds of factors.

So it is just four pairs, weigh each pair up, tell me in each case who you think has the strongest collective?

Okay then...

India or Russia?

N Korea or Britain?

Pakistan or Iran?

France or Turkey?

 

Russia.

North Korea.

Draw.

Turkey.

Britain has the best tochnology, power projection capability and most experienced air force and army, but the UK is small in numbers. France less power porjection capability, slightly worse technology and less experience. Britain has by far the best capabilities out of all the countries listed, if it increased the size of it's army to just 300,000, 5,000 Para's, 1,500 SAS and SBS, plus 30,000 Royal Marines. With a larger more allround capable navy and air force, I would rather have the UK military than any of the others listed if that were the case. Right now I would rather have North Korea or Russia's military, they are the two best forces on the list. Then Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, India will all be about the same.

 

Britain is the most powerful out of all those nations. You cannot say that just because North Korea has a larger military than Britain that it's more powerful than Britain.

North Korea has the largest armed forces on the planet so, using your analogy, it's the most powerful country in the world.

The fact is that whilst the Norks have a humongous army the vast majority of their soldiers are unarmed and those that are armed have obsolete weapons. North Korea is no match for Britain. And neither is Turkey. A few Royal Navy Type 45 destroyers (the most powerful destroyers in the world) - or, of course, nuclear bombs - could destroy either of those two countries.

As for our next door neighbours the French, all we have to do is send a few Girl Guides over to Normandy in rubber dinghies and the French would surrender.

 

Well history shows it is not the size of the dog in the fight but the fight in the dog that matters

Well how can you expect the French fighting man to defend his country when there are young women in desperate need of seducing with fine wine, food and excellent culture

 

Those North Koreans would just eat the dog.

 

They are not. You hardly can threat other navies with a destroyer, which has no anti-ship missiles attached. There are some frigates under construstion, which will have no problems with sending 45 to the bottom. I guess Burkes are better then Type 45 either.

NORK has nukes too.

Turks have about 1500 aircraft, same number as you do. And about 4500 tanks. 20 times more then you do.

 

Interesting way to word it.

 

I am not going of what military gives it's nation more world wide power, but which military out of the list I would rather have. I would rather have Russia's military and North Korea's than the UK's. North Korea's artillery, numbers and no surrender would mean the UK forces would be swampped and overun and the UK air force doesn't have the capability to stop it from happening. The UK navy would defeat North Korea's but it would lose ships I couldn't replace because of lack of numbers, so the navy could do little to stop of the land forces from being overun.

The Type 45 is not the most powerful destroy in the world. Tiawan, Japan, South Korea, China and the US all have more powerful destroyers.

 

Remember folks, we are NOT factoring in nukes here, as it tilts things too much.

With that said, and I know these are going to sound like clumsy questions (well, I dunno how these things work!), when I was a kid, I imagine a A bomb to have one massive cartoon bomb, that if detonated would blow up the entire World.

I know it doesn't work like that, but how does it work? Unlikely scenario. Let's say that without any preamble, Israel decided to launch warheads at Britain. Could it be done in such a way that Britain would not know about it, until it was too late, and could do nothing back? Or no matter how stealth Israel were about it, would the attack be detected, but even were it so, what could Britain do to protect itself from the warheads that had been fired? Can you knock them off course, or is there any way to negate them? Would the nation that fired them first definitely win, or not so? For instance, would it be possible for Israel to fire warheads, but they are taken off course, then Britain manage a successful counter strike against them?

Anyone on that, and sorry again for the clumsy manner in which I ask, I have no real idea about these things.

 

First of all, there is no actual proof, that Israel has nukes. As I understand, they have never commited actual tests of A-bomb.

There are only two countries, which have early missle attack warning systems. USA and Russia obviously. Others wouldn't knew they are under attack, until nukes arrive. However, Britain would be able to launch backlash attack, excluding the case all 4 Vanguard subs were stationed at port or were hunted down.

 

How though? If it had just been hit with nukes, surely it would be too destroyed?

And what is the use of spending loads of money on nukes etc and NOT having an early missile attack system?

 

British nukes are deployed on Vanguard-class submarines. Despite Britain would be destroyed, crews would be able to expirence sweet revenge. Not the case if they were all at ports at the moment or were hunted down, obviously.

To strike first, for one.

 

Not much use in that, if your nation lies in ruins. Why not get one of those early warning programme's, and what actual use does it do anyway, for instance, sure, it can alert you faster, but what can you do about the warheads already on their way?

 

True. But hypotetic attacker knows he has high statistical probability to recieve proper response.It's called deterrence.
This is the reason for all the bustle about missile defense. If a country will posess well-developed missile defense system, it can neutralize a nuclear attack or significantly reduce its impact. That will give it the opportunity to use nuclear weapons with impunity.

COST. You'll gona need several beyound-horizon radars to detect incoming nukes and a satellite group to detect missiles' launches. Like these:

It is about saving your nuclear potential from being destroyed with enemies nukes. If you know you are under attack you can launch all you missiles before enemy ones will hit your ground. You enemy will get total ellimination instead of just serious strike.

 

It's interesting reading in here how partisan the responses tend to be. And how literally there is little real consideration of not only the nations described, but where and how such a conflict would happen.

India and Russia, this is a no brainer, Russia. India simply does not have the "legs" to take on a country like Russia, period. Most of their equipment is export Soviet stuff, or Russian/Soviet cast-offs. Most of their current generation tanks are Russian export models, not as good as what the Russians themselves use.

NK or UK, this is tricky. If somehow both were placed on a battlefield, I think the North Koreans would overwhelm them by sheer numbers. Yes, Human Wave is a costly way to fight, but when you outweigh a nation as far as NK outweighs the UK, it is simply a fact of mathematics. Yes, the UK has superior equipment and tactics, but NK has sheer numbers. And quantity has a quality all it's own.

Pakistan or Iran. This I would say is a deadlock. Both are actually about equal really. Pakistan has more Active personnel (600,000 Pakistan against 500,000 Iran), but Iran has a gigantic advantage once the reserves are called up (1.8 million for Iran, against 500,000 for Pakistan). Iranian equipment is also more dated and of more various vintage, but they are also active in developing their own. Looking at the history of the Iran-Iraq War, I would honestly call this one a draw.

France and Turkey, much the same. But I think in the long run, Turkey might pull it off. France has better equipment over all (they are a major arms producer and exporter after all), but Turkey has a lot more forces (400,000 for France, 1 million for Turkey). And while the French has better equipment in theory, it's condition is rather questionable. Almost half of their main battle tanks (Leclerc) are no longer operational or in service (only 250 of 400 are in service), while Turkey has a large number of tanks even if they are of lesser quality (350 Leopard II, 400 Leopard I, 850 M60). So even with tank losses of 4 to 1, Turkey would still win a tank battle with France.

However, it is not always about equipment.

Russia (Soviet Union) has been known to win against huge overwhelming odds and losses. India has never won a major military engagement.

North Korea only fought 1 major war, and got their teeth in twice, being pushed north of their original border twice, and ending the war that way. The UK is a kind of has-been power, but provided the time to train and equip more forces, I do not question their tenacity or abilities. I mostly think that any such war would be over before they could bring the weight of the Commonwealth into play.

Pakistan and Iran is also tricky. Neither nation has ever won a major war, both essentially had draws in their conflicts (Pakistan with India, Iran with Iraq). I think this really would be just a bloody stalemate, with Iranian martyrs throwing themselves in front of Pakistani machineguns.

France and Turkey, this is also interesting. France has not won a real war in almost 100 years. Turkey has not had to fight a war, but lives in one of the most dangerous regions on the planet. Other then the Foreign Legion, I really do not have much respect for the French military. When looking strictly at which country would have "it's pecker up", this I would give to Turkey. I doubt that the French would have the political or social will to fight a war.

 

I always dislike these types of threads, as I tend to see isolated wars as impossible these days, and have to view conflicts as collections of alliances, existing or probable, and defense agreements, not individual countries. Maybe in Africa, but not anywhere else.

 

I agree Russia is just better than India in every way. Also I find many Indians to be childish and impetulant, they think they are the best at everything because it's what they see, they never look at others capabilities. Outside the military there is the sport of cricket which England and Australia used to dominate in financial terms now India does, so they just use there power to pick on other smaller nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh, and refuse to do what's best for the game, rather what's best for them. The late Tony Greig former England captain made a speech about this and the Indians when crazy. There is also the problem that they think Sachin Tendulkar is better than Don Bradman who averaged 99.94, where as Tendulkar averages 53.83. They are really stupid and can't take any criticism at all.

The UK is a has been power and it's been the case since the Germans took Norway, the defeat in France which was some how turned into a great victory by Churchill after Dunkirk, Singapore and the Indian Ocean raid. A country maybe able to take 2 defeats like that, but not 4 within the space of 3 years. I still have no idea why people in the UK think WW2 was a great victory, when it was a total failure of the British for 20 years and mainly that man Winston Churchill in WW1 and the 20's before his mother died after that he became the great man in the 30's and 40's. The UK would need WW2 levels of troops to take on North Korea, something we couldn't do. At most maybe 650,000 troops total, North Korea would crush the British Army, the RAF is far to small as is the navy. The UK is better at small supporting roles with no more than a divison to back up another power, while they do all the fighting at sea. The "Commonwealth" wouldn't lift a finger to help the UK, they hate us as there former colonial overlord. The only two places that like us are New Zealand and Canada, they have little of no military capabilities of there own.

The intesting thing for me about Pakistan and Iran is there intelligence services and how they would use internal terrorists groups against each other, Afghanistan would also become a major battle group and go right back into civil war.

I don't believe all the rubbish people speak about the French not having the will to fight wars, histroy shows they have the will but they don't have the capability to win even when they really should. Algeria, Viet Nam and WW2 France was willing to fight and lost thousands of people, but they failed to win. Turkey doesn't have this same mentally, so there for they would beat France.

 

Thanks v much for such a well thought through answer. I really like it when someone makes the effort, appreciate that.

Interesting shout with the Foreign Legion. I used to hear almost legendary stories about them, from my older brother, as a kid. Until you mentioned them, I had no idea that they still functioned.

How would you feel, same basis as previous, about this quartet?

Japan - Israel

Australia - Brazil.

 

Japan would defeat Israel. Japan or the UK has the second best military in the world, Japan has the second best navy in the world currently, a highly capable and very well equipped army and air force, plus a huge industrial output and population compared to Israel. Israel is vastly overrated by the media and has been saved many a times by the US and allies from being defeated. It has almost no navy, it's army above average but nothing special, the air force is where Israel could match Japan for a time, but they have more aircraft and pilots so Japan would win, plus they have better AEW capabilities.

Brazil would defeat Australia. Australia has real problem with man power and building equipment. They are great as special forces helping the US as is New Zealand, but in terms for full scale military conflict against Brazil a rasing superpower with a large population and growing industry I can only see Brazil winning.

 

Oh yes, the Foreign Legion is still in operation. It is a very small, elite unit (less then 8.000 men), and has been quite active. They were active in Lebanon in the early 1980's (even remaining after the US Marines left), the Gulf War, and many other places from Cambodia and former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan and Mali.

And one of the reasons they have their reputation is in how they recruit. A man can join the Foreign Legion, and as long as they are not an actual wanted criminal, they can join under an assumed name. And after 3 years of honorable service, their past is "wiped clean", and they can get French citizenship. A great many Germans did this after WWII, and even some Frenchmen.

Until recently Frenchmen were not allowed to serve in the Legion (other then as officers). However, it is believed that many who served in the Occupation Forces during WWII (like the Charlemagne Division SS) used the Foreign Legion to clean their record.

As far as the other, one is obvious. Between Japan and Israel, Israel would win. That is because Japan does not have a military, and could only fight a defensive war. And unless it is a true David Vs. Goliath situation, you can't win a war being completely defensive.

And there is really no way to ever have Brazil fight Australia, any such conflict would turn into Brazil against the UK.

Personally, I do not care much for these types of random questions, since they lack almost anything needed in such a case, like context and cassias belli. However, frankly I felt I had to drop in something after seeing some of the absolutely bigoted and ignorant posts others have made in this thread. Almost every time a thread like this appears, it generally turns into "Oh, XXX would win because YYY is a bunch of stupid wogs/**************/idiots/etc". And I always find that highly offensive as well as idiotic.

 

kinda depends on where the fight actually takes place

 

I suppose we can only measure it by way of some sort of neutral terrain + based on their tech and hardware + manpower + their history in other conflicts?

 

Dunno.

Just interested to read the views that people have given, so far.

Not doing any harm is it?

Plus, I am bored with all the Boston threads.

*shrugs*

 

Iran vs Pakistan is a realistic war, but the others are very very unlikely. So do some research and find out about some more realistic wars or conflicts we can debate. Like Thailand vs Cambodia. I think there could be a resouce war over the Nile river. There are other possible future conflicts and wars out there, many I hope will never happen.