What is the current military strength of the Top 10 nations? - Page 5




View Poll Results :Should countries have more or less troops?
More, every country should have a million soldiers. 15 62.50%
Less, large armies are no longer needed. 9 37.50%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
September 23rd, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
"A real superpower should be able to defeat any non-superpower, but can USA defeat China, India, Russia? I don't think so." Is that a joke? Can you post any facts to that? Wait nevermind, Ive seen enough pictures.
September 23rd, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
America is and has been a superpower, however, as conflicts like Vietnam have shown. We do not always have men capable of running a super power nation to full effect. This, no doubt, is Flying Frog's proof of USA's none-superpower status.
September 23rd, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
"America is and has been a superpower, however, as conflicts like Vietnam have shown. We do not always have men capable of running a super power nation to full effect. This, no doubt, is Flying Frog's proof of USA's none-superpower status."

Did you read that before you posted it?
--
September 23rd, 2004  
AsianAmerican
 
 
In my opinion one should never jump to conclusions on a war that never occured yet... I.E China Vs America or India Vs Pakistan. You can never really say who will win. Anything can happen which can alter the whole game. The only way to know who would win is in the end when one side gives up. But in respect in war there are no winners because so many people must die. JUST MY OPINION PLZ DONT FLAME/HATE ME
September 23rd, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Yes I did, Big Z. What's your beef with it? Flying Frog always uses the excuse of the Vietnam conflict "lose" as a show of American power, when in fact, it was poor decision makeing of the politicians. (and as I said in a previous topic, the south vietnamese fault)
September 23rd, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
You said that America is a superpower then you said flyingfrog has proof that it isnt a superpower. It either is or it isnt.
September 23rd, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
In flying frog's opinion, it is proof. Gosh you're dense
September 23rd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Just for fun, I looked up the word Superpower --
"A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc." was the definition from one dictionary.

"a state powerful enough to influence events throughout the world" was the definition from another.

China lacks a bloc of allies that it leads I guess. Russia does too, now that the Warsaw Pact is a thing of the past. I don't know how strong China's and/or Russia's capabilities of influencing events worldwide would be right now. Obviously the United States still has that capability and it is still the most important single nation in NATO. Based on those definitions, the United States would fit, but I don't know that any other country would. Not what I was expecting for a definition though.

The USA has a significant influence on things on every continent and in every region of the world. The Soviet Union used to have the same scope of influence of course, but today's Russia does not of course. Nations like China and India have limitted influence beyond their immediate neighborhood, but that's changing gradually, especially in China's case.
September 23rd, 2004  
gladius
 
The US lost in Vietnam because they were fighting a political war.

If they had fought it the way war ought to be fought the US would have won.

The US can defeat any single country in the world that includes China, Russia or India.
September 23rd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Gladius, I'll grant you that the USA could probably beat India or Russia in a full fledged war. China ... only with this condition - if China is required to only allowed to replace their losses in equipment with 100% Chinese-made items. Then ... maybe ...

Course, saying so is going to get the thread locked.