How would you rank the world's militaries?
- Thread starter Robcatt24
- Start date
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.we...lta-force-special-forces-long-walk-2634191325
Delta Force was based off of SAS. idk I’m prolly bias too and always think America is guna be the best. America prolly definitely has more battle and operation experience
Of the big 3 (US, Russia, and China), which would be the hardest to invade? Seems like each has an advantage to go with their military strength. Russia with size, China with population, and the US with armed civilians. I'd go with us being the hardest, followed by Russia next, and then China.
You can't count China out though. They would probably purposely infect their own people with biological weapons just to spread it to their invaders. It wouldn't surprise me if they would nuke themselves as well to take out their enemy.
You can't count China out though. They would probably purposely infect their own people with biological weapons just to spread it to their invaders. It wouldn't surprise me if they would nuke themselves as well to take out their enemy.
We generally have better equipment but the training sometimes (depending on service) is not as tough as it should be. Look, I too am biased towards the US but, I am also a realist and understand reality.
You would also have to consider terrain and climate which would benefit Russia if they were invaded.
I figure attacking Russia would consist of a bunch of bombing runs from over the Arctic Circle. At least that is the way I think it was originally planned.
I was stationed at Loring AFB up in Maine back in 91 and there was a bunch of B-52's parked there to do exactly that. I believe the base closed shortly after I left. So I don't know what the attack strategy would be these days.
I'm guessing Alaska would play an important part in attacking them with the Air Force. Then bringing the Navy in from multiple areas (North Pacific, Mediterranean Sea, or maybe even Baltic Sea). Followed up with ground troops flown in from European bases. Definitely wouldn't send ground troops in near Siberia.
I can't confirm this because it was only on a "documentary" that I saw but it said that the alternate plan for dropping the bombs on Japan was to invade by sea from the south, pave it and try to land planes there so we could fight north from there. That obviously didn't happen but what the documentary said was they started making the Purple Hearts they thought they were going to be need for that. It said that those Purple Hears lasted through the rest of that, Korea, Vietman and were still be given out in the first part of the Iraq conflict.
That's a great question. It's us though. We have two oceans with more guns than people waiting on you.
Russia for thre huge landmass and weather. Plus they've got tough *** soldiers.
As crazy as it sounds China would rank 3rd. They've got the numbers bit our Sea Air Land approach would do a lot of damage before ground troops would arrive.
Modern warfare isn’t armed invasions. It’s cyber and space. Superiority in these arenas runs the world. And Russia and China are equals in that regard and way more malicious. If Russia weaponized AI for instance they could take us on in effectively a click of a button.
There is a lot of territory to cover. The logistics of it would require a lot of equipment and manpower. Of course mobilizing or current day "Minutemen" (a generic term used for everyone so we don't offend the foo foo's on here) would definitely help but, you would need the heavy airlift capability to do it. Don't think we have enough cargo airlift capability.
Now getting back to a point someone made before about America being the hardest to invade because we are heavily armed as a nation is probably the best point on the subject.
Tell that to countries still fighting today. There will always be physical conflict and the need for ground forces to go in even after missiles and aircraft have destroyed armies/cities to occupy until the wars are over.