Most powerful military in the known world? (Today)

[Regnum Dominae]

The US, without any doubt whatsoever.

[Yalos]

I'm rolling with the Swiss because...Swiss.

[Arkinesia]

It was originally built in 1986 (not much older than the US carriers, maybe newer, I don't know), and it was modernized starting in 2008.

If I recall correctly, several of the older Nimitz-class supercarriers were built during the 1970s.

Which are being phased out presently by the Gerald R. Ford.

Which if someone could tell me why we named an entire class of carriers after a throwaway President I'd really appreciate it.

The US doesn't need to defeat China. They use their far superior ballistic strike capability to remove China's force projection capabilities while relying on their far superior missile defense system to prevent China from doing the same.

No weight. Lmao.

I'm not sure you can even count six SSBNs as any kind of ballistic strike capability. Not against a power like the US, anyway.

But again, this goes back to the problem with the PLAN, they have virtually no blue-water power. They're a glorified anti-piracy brigade at this point in time.

[GraySoap]

Which if someone could tell me why we named an entire class of carriers after a throwaway President I'd really appreciate it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_For ... rld_War_II

[Blazedtown]

Which are being phased out presently by the Gerald R. Ford.

Which if someone could tell me why we named an entire class of carriers after a throwaway President I'd really appreciate it.

Because he commanded an AA battery on a carrier in WW2. If they didn't have the George H. W. Bush already they probably would've went with that since he was a highly decorated pilot in the Navy during the war.

I'm not sure you can even count six SSBNs as any kind of ballistic strike capability. Not against a power like the US, anyway.

But again, this goes back to the problem with the PLAN, they have virtually no blue-water power. They're a glorified anti-piracy brigade at this point in time.

What do you think of the rumors that China's been hiding a larger nuclear arsenal than they let on?

[Arkinesia]

I'm not sure you can even count six SSBNs as any kind of ballistic strike capability. Not against a power like the US, anyway.

But again, this goes back to the problem with the PLAN, they have virtually no blue-water power. They're a glorified anti-piracy brigade at this point in time.

What do you think of the rumors that China's been hiding a larger nuclear arsenal than they let on?

They appear to be increasingly unlikely. It's a shame, those Georgetown kids seemed pretty bright, but most of the things they found on satellite images were probably just ground clutter or non-nuclear military installations.

[Pharthan]

Which are being phased out presently by the Gerald R. Ford.

Considering the Ford is the only one anywhere near completion and it's replacing the Enterprise, I'd hardly call that "presently."

[Wytenigistan]

You put Spain and Turkey on here but not Israel? Come on!

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Overall, individual country: US.
Overall, alliance (any existing or reasonably possible): NATO
"per capita" or relative to size: perhaps Israel, Switzerland

[Imperializt Russia]

Until a significantly larger all-mechanised artillery-heavy force comes along.

Ever heard of the National Redoubt?
That would be just as likely to work against the US forces as it did against Germany. And they've made some additions as well. Switzerland is basically a fortress, no matter how you dice it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... ernization
With a tenth the men to man it and many positions decommissioned, it's unlikely to exist much longer.

Modern potential aggressors are either liable to offer quarter to those who capitulate, or nuke the redoubt into atoms. Making its usefulness nil.

What do you think of the rumors that China's been hiding a larger nuclear arsenal than they let on?

That they're rumours.
China doesn't need an arsenal to match the US' weapon for weapon, and attempting to do so would not be good for China. It would only open them up to the threat of total strategic exchange.

[Lackadaisical2]

A far superior missile defense isn't 100% perfect,

Not that it matters, whatever Chinese missiles that slip through the safety net will cause a negligible amount of damage.

in fact the current NMD is far from complete.

And yet it remains more than adequate in it's current state at stopping the amount of Chinese missiles with a range great enough to reach the US.

Now, China doesn't need a force projection - because the fact still remains that in a war, the US would be unable to successfully keep a beach head with such ridiculous supply capabilities in the region. Even then, China could simply obliterate a beach head with a nuclear strike.

The US won't invade China. They'll eliminate China's ability to attack and invade them or their pals in the Pacific and be done with the issue. Because the only reason the US would ever go to war with China would be if the Chinese attempted to exercise said ability.

So much this.

In any conflict between US and China, China will be the likely aggressor as the US could see no benefit to an invasion. The most likely scenario, is either Japan or Taiwan's territorial integrity being threatened by China.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Not that it matters, whatever Chinese missiles that slip through the safety net will cause a negligible amount of damage.


And yet it remains more than adequate in it's current state at stopping the amount of Chinese missiles with a range great enough to reach the US.


The US won't invade China. They'll eliminate China's ability to attack and invade them or their pals in the Pacific and be done with the issue. Because the only reason the US would ever go to war with China would be if the Chinese attempted to exercise said ability.

So much this.

In any conflict between US and China, China will be the likely aggressor as the US could see no benefit to an invasion. The most likely scenario, is either Japan or Taiwan's territorial integrity being threatened by China.

The problem is, China has no way to hit the US short of a nuclear attack.

Their navy is pathetic and mostly geared towards coastal and brown water operations, their only carrier, which is, lets face it, the measure of modern naval power, a 1980's Soviet carrier with 1/3 the capacity of US carriers.

They don't even have fighters to put on the damn thing. China's only carrier-based fixed wing plane was introduced in 2012 and they have fewer than 20 of them.

So essentially, any war with China would consist mostly of the US parking a few carrier groups off the coast and burning down cities until the Chinese gave up. They might try to invade Korea, but the entire northern half of South Korea is essentially a giant fortification now, so I don't think that would go well.

They could try to nuke somebody, but we all know where that ends up.

[Imperializt Russia]

So much this.

In any conflict between US and China, China will be the likely aggressor as the US could see no benefit to an invasion. The most likely scenario, is either Japan or Taiwan's territorial integrity being threatened by China.

The problem is, China has no way to hit the US short of a nuclear attack.

Their navy is pathetic and mostly geared towards coastal and brown water operations, their only carrier, which is, lets face it, the measure of modern naval power, a 1980's Soviet carrier with 1/3 the capacity of US carriers.

They don't even have fighters to put on the damn thing. China's only carrier-based fixed wing plane was introduced in 2012 and they have fewer than 20 of them.

So essentially, any war with China would consist mostly of the US parking a few carrier groups off the coast and burning down cities until the Chinese gave up. They might try to invade Korea, but the entire northern half of South Korea is essentially a giant fortification now, so I don't think that would go well.

They could try to nuke somebody, but we all know where that ends up.

Why would China even want to attack the US?

Liaoning is a twenty-first century new-build carrier.
It has the hull of a 1980s Soviet carrier, yes. Liaoning started life as a hulk.

You further assume there is no reason to have less aircraft than an American Supercarrier.
China's primary reason, aside from Liaoning being a decent test bed for getting the PLAN used to carrier operations and future carrier builds/acquisitions, is that it will never be needed to fight the US carriers, or undertake projection operations on the scale of those the US has to.

The same reason why no force matches the US in strategic movement, navy or spending.

[Oaledonia]

The problem is, China has no way to hit the US short of a nuclear attack.

Their navy is pathetic and mostly geared towards coastal and brown water operations, their only carrier, which is, lets face it, the measure of modern naval power, a 1980's Soviet carrier with 1/3 the capacity of US carriers.

They don't even have fighters to put on the damn thing. China's only carrier-based fixed wing plane was introduced in 2012 and they have fewer than 20 of them.

So essentially, any war with China would consist mostly of the US parking a few carrier groups off the coast and burning down cities until the Chinese gave up. They might try to invade Korea, but the entire northern half of South Korea is essentially a giant fortification now, so I don't think that would go well.

They could try to nuke somebody, but we all know where that ends up.

Why would China even want to attack the US?

Liaoning is a twenty-first century new-build carrier.
It has the hull of a 1980s Soviet carrier, yes. Liaoning started life as a hulk.

You further assume there is no reason to have less aircraft than an American Supercarrier.
China's primary reason, aside from Liaoning being a decent test bed for getting the PLAN used to carrier operations and future carrier builds/acquisitions, is that it will never be needed to fight the US carriers, or undertake projection operations on the scale of those the US has to.

The same reason why no force matches the US in strategic movement, navy or spending.

Without being acussed of defending China: Don't they focus more on AShMs for protection?

[Imperializt Russia]

Why would China even want to attack the US?

Liaoning is a twenty-first century new-build carrier.
It has the hull of a 1980s Soviet carrier, yes. Liaoning started life as a hulk.

You further assume there is no reason to have less aircraft than an American Supercarrier.
China's primary reason, aside from Liaoning being a decent test bed for getting the PLAN used to carrier operations and future carrier builds/acquisitions, is that it will never be needed to fight the US carriers, or undertake projection operations on the scale of those the US has to.

The same reason why no force matches the US in strategic movement, navy or spending.

Without being acussed of defending China: Don't they focus more on AShMs for protection?

Amongst other things.
The important thing to note is that Liaoning is clearly not designed to directly compete with the USN carrier fleets.
Nor is the Kuznetsov from which it derives.

[Chinese Regions]

Why?

Where did it come from that it mentions Gundams? I swear I thought it was a picture of a Gundam before clicking on it.

It's from a guy's fanfiction site.

[Madnolia]

1USA
Most investment in modern tech strong economy
2China
Modern Tech, huge infantry strong economy
3Germany
Strong economy modern tech decent numbers
4Russia
Less modern tech but large standing army
5UK
Modern tech but small standing army

[Madnolia]

The problem is, China has no way to hit the US short of a nuclear attack.

Their navy is pathetic and mostly geared towards coastal and brown water operations, their only carrier, which is, lets face it, the measure of modern naval power, a 1980's Soviet carrier with 1/3 the capacity of US carriers.

They don't even have fighters to put on the damn thing. China's only carrier-based fixed wing plane was introduced in 2012 and they have fewer than 20 of them.

So essentially, any war with China would consist mostly of the US parking a few carrier groups off the coast and burning down cities until the Chinese gave up. They might try to invade Korea, but the entire northern half of South Korea is essentially a giant fortification now, so I don't think that would go well.

They could try to nuke somebody, but we all know where that ends up.

Why would China even want to attack the US?

Liaoning is a twenty-first century new-build carrier.
It has the hull of a 1980s Soviet carrier, yes. Liaoning started life as a hulk.

You further assume there is no reason to have less aircraft than an American Supercarrier.
China's primary reason, aside from Liaoning being a decent test bed for getting the PLAN used to carrier operations and future carrier builds/acquisitions, is that it will never be needed to fight the US carriers, or undertake projection operations on the scale of those the US has to.

The same reason why no force matches the US in strategic movement, navy or spending.

Exactly, china isnt going to start a war with a huge trading partner like the u.s.

The cold war is over people, communism and imgonnanukeyouism is dead in the modern world.

Minus north korea which has the rocket capability of sixty seconds of flight.

[Megyaroszag]

1. Hungary


...
Okay, fine,

1. USA
2. UK
3. China
4. France
5. Russia

[Greater Femocracy]

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. France
5. India
6. UK
7. Israel
8. North Korea
9. Pakistan
Maybe Iran and South Africa.

Others haven't nuclear weapons...

[Madnolia]

1. Hungary


...
Okay, fine,

1. USA
2. UK
3. China
4. France
5. Russia

The UK does not have a better military than china.

Trust me my dad is in the UK army.

[H-Alba]

1. Hungary


...
Okay, fine,

1. USA
2. UK
3. China
4. France
5. Russia

The UK does not have a better military than china.

Trust me my dad is in the UK army.

The Chinese military may be large, but it is incapable of offensive tasks. It's a glorified national defense force, whilst the UK's is stronger in offensive. It may not be the best, but it is better than China's military.

[Madnolia]

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. France
5. India
6. UK
7. Israel
8. North Korea
9. Pakistan
Maybe Iran and South Africa.

Others haven't nuclear weapons...

North korea's military is run on outdated equipment and the soviet nukes they do have doesn't make up for the lack of rockets to carry the damn things. North korean rockets probably couldn't reach seoul if they tried. South africa (and everyone else pretty much) is more powerful than north korea, they just don't death threat the western world all the time.

[The New Lowlands]

Why would China even want to attack the US?

Liaoning is a twenty-first century new-build carrier.
It has the hull of a 1980s Soviet carrier, yes. Liaoning started life as a hulk.

You further assume there is no reason to have less aircraft than an American Supercarrier.
China's primary reason, aside from Liaoning being a decent test bed for getting the PLAN used to carrier operations and future carrier builds/acquisitions, is that it will never be needed to fight the US carriers, or undertake projection operations on the scale of those the US has to.

The same reason why no force matches the US in strategic movement, navy or spending.

Exactly, china isnt going to start a war with a huge trading partner like the u.s.

The cold war is over people, communism and imgonnanukeyouism is dead in the modern world.

Minus north korea which has the rocket capability of sixty seconds of flight.

>'over'

[United Kingdom of Kent]

1USA
Most investment in modern tech strong economy
2China
Modern Tech, huge infantry strong economy
3Germany
Strong economy modern tech decent numbers
4Russia
Less modern tech but large standing army
5UK
Modern tech but small standing army

How does Britain have a small standing army when just it's regular force alone is much larger than the whole German army yet you give them "decent numbers"