Originally Posted by riathamus

the only way a nation can distinguish it-self from all the others is it's ability to stop nuclear weapons by disabling them before there target.

Totally agree with you!

It is decieving what you all are saying. The subject of power is very complex. You can not just compare weapons technologies to determine the strength of a nation. There are many many factors wich contribute to the hands down dominence of the USA. The USA is the richest country in the world with the highest per capita gdp. We far outspend any other country on defence and our military. Russia isn't even in the top 20 by far ! Last time I checked the GDP per capita of rusian citizens is only $4,200 USD, compared to the USA's $36,500. Rusia barely has a higher GDP than china! The USA has 269 BILLION-AIRS.... Russia? only 8. Thats less than Mexico for gods sake, Not to mention that the US has almost twice the citizens of russia, so just do the math. We have a system that works, we come up with the best new Ideas that drive the world economy. Who invented the airplane? The things that make us #1 are endless. Just look at how many people want to live here, look at how many women from russia post their pictures online hoping to get an american husband, look at the facts and dont let your fears consume you and blind you to what is and has been. I am not saying at all that the people in the US are better than the people anywhere else, I believe everybody is born equal, its what you do with your life that counts. Heres a lil tid bit of info to enlighten ya, The US has over 170 million computers, Russia has less than 6 million. So dont dispute the fact that USA is number 1. I dont know who second place would go to because it isnt nearly as clear cut as who is 1. But from the looks of how things are going now if china isnt 2 they will be soon a very distant 2nd .
dont tread on US

Whats the point trying to figure out who's the best when it comes to military power. USA is the only country that can conduct military operations outside it's borders....

So I really do'nt see the point with this comparing thing...

Originally Posted by larsrq

Whats the point trying to figure out who's the best when it comes to military power. USA is the only country that can conduct military operations outside it's borders....

So I really do'nt see the point with this comparing thing...

Better revise your statement, Russia and to a lesser degree China are capabale of fighting outside their borders so long as they never leave land, and the UK has a very powerful, well funded, and well maintained Navy and their technology rivals that of the US. Germany and France have become very peaceful nations, some (myself included) feel that France and Germany have grown sick of fighting after being decastated by WWI and WWII and now refuse to fight unless attacked. Italy has the most powerful Mediterranean Fleet, they could easily send troops anywhere within the Med. before anyone could stop the, whether they could support them for a prolonged period however could be a problem. Brazil is the most powerful nation on the South American continent and could likely conquer the whole of the continent without a US, or European interference. (does anyone else find it funny that Brazil wants to sell Rockets to the ESF? Doesn't Europe already hae their own successful rocket program?)

I still think that either Russia or the UK is the second most powerful nation in the world.

After reading all of those posts it's pretty safe to say this thread just got hijacked and has turned into USSR/Russia vs US. First, I don't understand how someone could say that the US didn't win the Cold War, seeing as how they were the "last ones standing." Next, the Russians may have numbers, but the US relies on force multipliers to conduct operations. It was proven when 9 M1A1 tanks destroyed 30 T-72s in Desert Storm. Need I even mention Medina Ridge?
With that in mind, everyone is talking about experimental planes and planes with such low production numbers that the threat is insignificant. One Su-37 or Mig 35 or whatever you want to come up with is not a threat to the USAF. Even a squad of them won't be a threat. Why is it not a threat? The US has a support structure of E planes and ground control systems that interact with each other to focus their efforts where they are needed. Coordinated teamwork will overcome the slight technological advantage that the enemy may have.
Speaking of technological advantage, the US Intelligence Agencies are the best in the world too *opening a new bag of worms with that statement*. You know what's more important than having 10,000 tanks? Knowing where those 10,000 tanks will be unmanned at any given moment. The KGB might have been an amazing intelligence organization at one point, but the fall of the Soviet Union also meant the fall of any organization they had between agents and systems.
Then there was speak of how ruthless the Soviets are. It's apparent that that statement was made without any knowledge of how the US operates. The only reason the US might seem less ruthless is because they have a judicial system and national moral code that they are expected to uphold as a democracy. In other words, the US needs to maintain plausible deniability for any actions that could be deemed savage, ruthless, or cruel. Anyone still remember Tony Poe and his gang?


ANYWAY, before I keep rambling on about how stupid this USSR vs US thing is. Let's get back on topic. The 2nd most powerful country is whatever the US chooses to be the 2nd most powerful country The reason I say that? The US shares it's technology allowing other countries to instantly "catch up" to their levels. The US gave nuc/bio/chem weapon info to Israel (let's face it, if it wasn't for the US Israel wouldn't be what it is), not to mention the UK, and Canada. Does this automatically make these nations the next most powerful? I dunno, seems a little stupid seeing as how we're all supposed to be allies. If I had friends that I knew would fight for me, I'd like to make sure they were just as strong as I was.

Originally Posted by Guy100

a Mig-25 was shot down by an F-15 because there was a poorly trained, rookie, arab pilot that was flying it. if a Russian pilot would have controled the Mig-25 then the results could have been different.

Let's understand a few things about the MiG-25. First, it is a pure interceptor, not a tactical fighter or an air superiority fighter (Although there is a recon version, made possible because there are some similar traits in the mission profile). Knowing the differences is important when comparing aircraft capabilities.

It was designed to intercept bombers (With a cruise-missile inteception capability added to the follow-up MiG-31) so it's made to take off, speed to a certain point, then launch long/medium-range AAMs at the direction of a ground station. It was not designed to fight other fighters and can't very well because it is made to go in a straight line very fast and not manuevering. the last thing a MiG-25 pilot would want to do is get in a gun-range or even IR-missile range fight because they would be at a tremendous disadvantage. Some air forces (Libya's, for example) have hung short-range AAMs on it, but if a pilot has to use them, he's either gotten in over his head or is flying a profile that has essentially thrown all the advantages of the Foxbat out the window.

Granted, the Foxbat has tremendous top speed, but that's not the be-all/end-all. The version capable of Mach-3 is, IIRC, the recon versions, but there's something else about the speed. Once that blisteringly fast flight has been made, here's what happens: The Foxbat lands, it's towed into a hangar, and two now-worthless engines are pulled from the airframe. Hardly an effecient way to operate an aircraft. Also, the high top speed means there is nearly zero ability to turn, planes travelling that fast just can't turn enough to make any air combat manuever.

The Russians are/were fully aware of this, which is why the MiG-25s and 31s are/were assigned to the PVO-Strany (the part of the air force tasked with defending the country from strategic attack) and not the tactical air force.
-------------------------------

Originally Posted by ACTaFOOL82

When I said it can shoot down 12 planes with two missles I meant it.

Its becuz the missle has its own independent radar. Once fired the F-14 can leave, becuz the missle guides itself, then splits and engages 6 targets at once. Its a 2 million dollar missle and it packs a big punch.

Sorry ACTaFOOL82, but no-can-do. For the fleet-defense mission, the F-14 used to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix missile (I say used to because the weapon is essentially retired now), which although indeed has an active-radar, but no "splitting" capability. I'm not as familiar with the newer Tomcat radars (AWG-70?), but the original AWG-9 could track 24 targets, then guide anywhere up to six AIM-54s, which was the most one F-14 could carry (Although they usually only carried two or four since six created some landing-weight problems when trying to return to the boat). The only missile that I've heard of that can "split" itself was a SAM that was under development and it's splitting capability was limited. Once the mother-missile got within impact range, the warhead would seperate into three independent parts, but without any radar guidance. It was merely to create a somewhat shotgun effect and increase the probability of kill by throwing three warheads at a single target instead of one.

Also, the Phoenix was designed to shoot down large ASMs or the launching aircraft. The rocket burns out after a relatively short run and the missile then coasts to its target. Therefore, there would be no power left for target-closure maneuvering. In essence, that means the AIM-54 would have been of little use against a fighter sized target that could turn faster than a Backfire.

As I implied, the whole Phoenix discussion has become mute since the missile is now virtually unused (And there's been some very serious discussion on whether it ever could really perform as advertised) now and the sun has set on the F-14 as well. Probably won't be any left on the boats in another couple of years.

mod editdo not post back to back. Use the edit button to add to an existing post

Definitely china. It was a great nation in the past and will be a great nation in 10 years time.

With its huge population, GDP and increasingly educated people.

Originally Posted by ACTaFOOL82

Sorry guys, get off my back. It was a misunderstanding in information. Even If I was wrong its a heavy obsolete aircraft anyway.

Pickle javascript: ( ) what the heck javascript. j/k

Originally Posted by mdvaden

I'm surprised China did not get more votes.

There are at least 3 ways to rate second most powerful.

1. Technological military might.

2. The numbers of men that fight in combat and invade.

3. Political influence.

Originally Posted by wisex

Which country was the strongest before 1500 ? Which country travelled the globe before the europeans ?

sorry gents, I accidentally moved your posts while cleaning up a mess and I couldn't figure out how to get them back. Repost them using the quotes above

SGT Doody

How come noone is arguing for Canada!!! LOL

Second most powerful country, Yep, i think it's China. Population, Nationalistic, burning desire, massive workforce, enlarging GDP, major global trader. Anyone who has the money has the power.