Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Most Powerful Military Powers In The World

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa7Ao

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by adietheforestfa View Post
      USA no 1 lol , didnt they loose to viet nam?

      SAS **** on anyone.
      So dumb...

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by Enayze View Post
        What good are soldiers when it takes ones missile to destroy a whole army?

        Americas mentality is more like, were on the other side of the world therefore leave us alone and let us live comfortably or else feel the wrath of our missiles when u disturb our sitcoms
        So then this isn't about military strengths ..It's about Nuclear arsenals..

        and didn't you just recite the gasoline and matches story?????

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by res View Post
          History hardly bares that out. I would be careful not to take popular stereotypes about how American citizens are in general and integrate them into a perspective of the American military.
          I understand that it's a difficult concept for Americans, NOT to be considered the best at everything by everyone in the world..

          And then you tell me about stereotyping..

          Comment


          • #75
            America is #1 at everything, including telling people we're #1. But you'll have to forgive us. It's hard to be humble when you're this sexy...

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by Syd Barrett View Post
              America is #1 at everything, including telling people we're #1. But you'll have to forgive us. It's hard to be humble when you're this sexy...
              LOL....

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by Don Corleone View Post
                You have a great point. My point was simply speaking of two nations that have nuclear weapons would most likely not go to war because they understand that both would be demolished. In fact, some experts have suggested that nuclear weapons actually deters a full blown war such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Some have argued that without nuclear weapons that were used as a threat, then there would've been an all out war between the U.S. going against communist factions mainly the USSR and Cuba.

                However, if a suicidal leader has a nuclear weapon, then there's big trouble. Because if he believes he will be rewarded in the next life for destroying a nation, how do you reason with him? But then again, how do you tell if he's suicidal? I don't think it's simply because their Muslim, because Saddam was a Muslim (although not a radical by any stretch) but he was not the suicide bomber such as the radicalized Muslims that blow themselves up. However, I think Kim Jong is the biggest threat to the entire world. Even more than Ahmadenijad in Iran. If anyone is suicidal, it's probably that guy.
                Thats exactly what im saying. If two countries with civilized leaders go to war with each other, there isnt much of a chance of them using there nukes. But if its some crazed, power mad lunatic like jong who goes to war, as long as it means the complete annhilation of the opposing force, nukes will be involved.

                If you have ever played the game call of duty 4, its kind of like that.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by Welter_Skelter View Post
                  I understand that it's a difficult concept for Americans, NOT to be considered the best at everything by everyone in the world..

                  And then you tell me about stereotyping..
                  Uhh, This second post is again nothing but a stereotype.

                  Assesing differences in attitude is not necessarily about superiority or inferiority, it is just about difference.


                  Sorry, but you don't become the most powerful and effective military in the world by just having a bunch of high "fallutin" machinery.

                  Does that mean that the attitude of you're military is "superior" ? no, but it does mean that it is suited to warfare, and that you're soilders aren't sitting around thinking about sitcoms.
                  Last edited by res; 03-15-2009, 04:35 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    size also needs to be taken into account - in the age of nukes small countries like the UK's overall military authority and ability is greatly weakened because of the low amount of bombs it would take to destroy it.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by Cobra 2K9 View Post
                      Thats exactly what im saying. If two countries with civilized leaders go to war with each other, there isnt much of a chance of them using there nukes. But if its some crazed, power mad lunatic like jong who goes to war, as long as it means the complete annhilation of the opposing force, nukes will be involved.

                      If you have ever played the game call of duty 4, its kind of like that.
                      Ye as I've said you brought up a valid point. And yes, I have played COD4 in fact I just turned it off about an hour ago. However, you can't use nukes but I understand the analogy.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP