Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Hmm.... I would probably go with US. (They spend way to much money, though)

At 2/2/08 07:42 PM, Fadious wrote: Cuz u don't use oil to fuel ur wargear

It doesn't take so much oil to fuel our weapons of war that we have to steal it.

& ur government uses ALL the profits from the selling oil to benefit the people & don't take ANYHING for themselves

Nobody is getting rich, though. Our officials are not getting rich without any explanation. Our national debt is growing.

If we were making any money off stolen oil, then it stands to reason that the money is going somewhere. There are no unexplained monetary gains, so therefore oil is not being stolen.

At 2/2/08 07:38 PM, Christopherr wrote:

I'm bored so I'm going to defend Fadious's position.

If we were getting part of our oil imports by stealing them (free), then our prices on things made :from oil would drop or remain constant.

You can't measure the change in price due to supply changes (opening of Iraq market) relative to the x-axis. Rather you have to consider it in the context of other factors. The scarcity of oil is increasing, as is the number of markets (think China, India), so the increase in the price of oil doesn't indicate that the US justly compensates suppliers.

Moreover, the wealth of a few small nations in the middle east is indicative of America's policy of rewarding a handful of loyal, non-democratic clerics in order to increase complacency in the greater region.

At 2/2/08 07:46 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: "Britannia" stopped ruling the waves over 60 years ago.

lol I was totally serious

The US has a way, WAY bigger and more advanced navy than the UK does.

no man you don't know the song

Russia's military is poorly degraded and pretty feckless today. They have SOME high-end technology in the works, but they don't have the money and resources to deploy anywhere near as advanced a military as the US.

More WMDs tho, depends how the war was fought, if it was a case of 'wipe out the opposition's populace' then it would be an interesting match and Russia would have a good chance

One has to consider who would ally where if Russia and the USA started fighting, too

Its good to hear that every agrees, the united states has the best military currently! Thats what $580billion a year gets you!

Also if needed 106 million men and women can be drafted into service, and ready to fight 6 weeks later, thats fucking awesome.

At 2/2/08 07:29 PM, Fadious wrote:

F-16 to kill children!?

& watch ur language

He doesnt need to watch his language, because you are an idiot.
And let me guess, you are probably a Muslims from Egypt/Syria/Lebanon/Jordan/Saudi-Arabia, or any other muslim country, right?

At 2/2/08 11:27 PM, Earfetish wrote:

At 2/2/08 07:46 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: "Britannia" stopped ruling the waves over 60 years ago.

lol I was totally serious

Um...

The US has a way, WAY bigger and more advanced navy than the UK does.

no man you don't know the song

Sarcasm doesn't travel too well via text.

Russia's military is poorly degraded and pretty feckless today. They have SOME high-end technology in the works, but they don't have the money and resources to deploy anywhere near as advanced a military as the US.

More WMDs tho, depends how the war was fought, if it was a case of 'wipe out the opposition's populace' then it would be an interesting match and Russia would have a good chance

Yes, Russia has more WMD than the US, but this doesn't necessarily mean they can apply these WMD more effectively in a potential massive war against the US.

I guess nuclear subs would be pretty critical in a war of annihilation. It seems like the US has more than the Soviets, but I'm not sure about our ability to destroy their subs.

Is there good protection for say president, congress in case of a nuclear attack? Bunkers in DC?

1: Scotland
2: UK
3: EU
4: US
5: China
6: Russians -_-

I is the wellest informed of u

At 2/2/08 07:46 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/2/08 07:13 PM, Earfetish wrote: I don't think there's any doubt the USA is the most prominent military force in the world.

But Britannia rules the waves.

The US has a way, WAY bigger and more advanced navy than the UK does.

The US has the World FIRST largest Navy (the US Navy) AND the world's SEVENTH largest Navy (the US Coast Guard).

At 2/3/08 08:34 AM, Al6200 wrote: Is there good protection for say president, congress in case of a nuclear attack? Bunkers in DC?

1) National Airborne Operational Center (NAOC) is a modified commericial acft similar to Air Force One except it is designed to be a mobile command post which means no press corps or other non-essential VIPs. In the movies Independence Day and Sum of All Fears this would've been the plane the President would've been boarding had those been real scenarios.

2) If they could not have been extracted from DC and our national command leadership there is the "shadow government" option.
(Shadow Govt operations after 9/11) Much of this is classified and I've heard some rumors that there are individuals appointed to high ranking cabinet posts (SECDEF, SECSTATE, etc) to "shadow" the real Cabinet Secretaries so that if a massive strike takes out the government (POTUS, VPOTUS, Cabinet) there are people who will become Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense automatically so there is not a break in government and someone able to take command. However, the CNN article seems to show a system where Cabinet members cycle in and out of secure locations outside of DC so it would be Sec Gates or Sec Rice who would take over and no "shadow"...

At 2/3/08 01:19 AM, model1888 wrote: Also if needed 106 million men and women can be drafted into service, and ready to fight 6 weeks later, thats fucking awesome.

We only have some 300,000,000 people here... of which 10%-20% are of age to serve in the military.

To get 106 million, we'd have to start drafting people who are generally too old to perform at top capability.

At 2/3/08 01:45 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/3/08 01:19 AM, model1888 wrote: Also if needed 106 million men and women can be drafted into service, and ready to fight 6 weeks later, thats fucking awesome.

We only have some 300,000,000 people here... of which 10%-20% are of age to serve in the military.

To get 106 million, we'd have to start drafting people who are generally too old to perform at top capability.

That's the sort of numbers China could draft into service, should they ever need to - but apparently that's a "horrible" reason to believe they have a better military than the US...

At 2/3/08 01:55 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: That's the sort of numbers China could draft into service, should they ever need to - but apparently that's a "horrible" reason to believe they have a better military than the US...

He said that when talking about the USA, lol.

106 million is a scary sum, but how do you think that they would be able to transport them? How would they arm them? The cost would be dizzying.

Also, if there were that many, they had better spread out, because the US would bomb their bases to hell, seeing as how there would be such a large number of soldiers in them.

satan has the best military

At 2/3/08 02:01 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/3/08 01:55 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: That's the sort of numbers China could draft into service, should they ever need to - but apparently that's a "horrible" reason to believe they have a better military than the US...

He said that when talking about the USA, lol.

106 million is a scary sum, but how do you think that they would be able to transport them? How would they arm them? The cost would be dizzying.

That all depends on military spend - the UK tends to overspend on their military (whilst underspending on health and education - it's easy to make a connection), but if China spends smarter, it's easier.

For example, if they picked up tanks and so forth on the cheap from Russia, they have good kit for cheap - this site says $800m/£400m, whilst a British Challenger II tank costs £2.2bn/$4.4bn.

The standard rifle, I believe, is the AK-47, which again are cheap and - in this case - plentiful, so again the costs are lower than for the US and UK.

Also, if there were that many, they had better spread out, because the US would bomb their bases to hell, seeing as how there would be such a large number of soldiers in them.

China is a very large country, so they can spread them out far better - China, the US and Russia all have this advantage (and, to a lesser degree, France and Germany) The UK, however, does not - Russia could take out the military (and general population) in the space of a morning if they had the reason.

At 2/3/08 01:45 PM, Christopherr wrote: We only have some 300,000,000 people here... of which 10%-20% are of age to serve in the military.

18-45... That's a hell of a lot more than 10-20%.

At 2/3/08 12:24 PM, Transkar wrote:

I is the wellest informed of u

Scotland lol.

They have claymore swords as tall as you!

Oi!

At 2/3/08 12:27 PM, TheMason wrote: The US has the World FIRST largest Navy (the US Navy) AND the world's SEVENTH largest Navy (the US Coast Guard).

Lol, yeah I remember reading that.

Except of course, the Coast Guard isn't really comparable to a blue water navy, even if it may be larger in terms of numbers of ships.

At 1/24/08 07:15 PM, PubicTears wrote: What country has the best army? I mean soldiers equipment, and training etc. Not the amount of soldiers the country has. So who do you think and why?

Germany, there good at killing people

At 2/3/08 07:52 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 2/3/08 12:27 PM, TheMason wrote: The US has the World FIRST largest Navy (the US Navy) AND the world's SEVENTH largest Navy (the US Coast Guard).

Lol, yeah I remember reading that.

Except of course, the Coast Guard isn't really comparable to a blue water navy, even if it may be larger in terms of numbers of ships.

Very true! However, the USCG does deploy overseas to patrol the shores of the various countries we operate in. They patroled in Vietnam and I believe some USCG units are over in Iraq right now. So while they are not blue water; they still have a global reach that the Iranian, Indian or Chinese navies do not!

At 2/3/08 12:27 PM, TheMason wrote: The US has the World FIRST largest Navy (the US Navy) AND the world's SEVENTH largest Navy (the US Coast Guard).

And it was founded by a Scotsman.

At 2/3/08 08:03 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/3/08 12:27 PM, TheMason wrote: The US has the World FIRST largest Navy (the US Navy) AND the world's SEVENTH largest Navy (the US Coast Guard).

And it was founded by a Scotsman.

Um... who happened to be an American revolutionary, and fought AGAINST the British.

Just because he was born in Scotland doesn't mean much.

At 2/3/08 08:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Um... who happened to be an American revolutionary, and fought AGAINST the British.

Just because he was born in Scotland doesn't mean much.

Died in France too.

I was born in Scotland and lived my life in England. Yet why do I consider myself Scottish? (not unless someone calls me English but that's because I can't be bothered to correct them) that man was probably more Scottish than I am.

And, nobody really knows when he left for Philadelphia. It's only a rough estimate.

At 2/3/08 07:02 PM, K-RadPie wrote: 18-45... That's a hell of a lot more than 10-20%.

I don't really count the older folk as able to serve... Probably below 40.

In all honesty, I should have said 20-30%, because 28-40 leaves us in the high twenties.

However, my point still stands that we would definitely not be able to arm 100,000,000 men.

At 2/3/08 02:32 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: That all depends on military spend - the UK tends to overspend on their military (whilst underspending on health and education - it's easy to make a connection), but if China spends smarter, it's easier.

Err, unless they start putting guns on the dollar menu, they aren't going to supply that large of an army. Ever.

For example, if they picked up tanks and so forth on the cheap from Russia, they have good kit for cheap - this site says $800m/£400m, whilst a British Challenger II tank costs £2.2bn/$4.4bn.

Do you think that anyone has enough tanks to supply a 100,000,000-man army? Even if they did, the costs would be utterly ridiculous, even if only the price of the tank itself is included.

The standard rifle, I believe, is the AK-47, which again are cheap and - in this case - plentiful, so again the costs are lower than for the US and UK.

Yeah, if you want a cheap, piece of shit gun. Even if you bought the absolute cheapest AKs there are (about $300) for only one third of a 100,000,000-man army, it would cost 10 trillion dollars. Nobody has that kind of money.

China is a very large country, so they can spread them out far better - China, the US and Russia all have this advantage (and, to a lesser degree, France and Germany) The UK, however, does not - Russia could take out the military (and general population) in the space of a morning if they had the reason.

Umm, we're pretty damn close to China in size. In fact, the US has about 70,000 more square miles total.

Just something interesting.... all American males are technically in the "unorganized" militia.

At 2/3/08 11:31 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/3/08 02:32 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: The standard rifle, I believe, is the AK-47, which again are cheap and - in this case - plentiful, so again the costs are lower than for the US and UK.

Yeah, if you want a cheap, piece of shit gun. Even if you bought the absolute cheapest AKs there are (about $300) for only one third of a 100,000,000-man army, it would cost 10 trillion dollars. Nobody has that kind of money.

The cost of producing an AK and arming your own military with it is probably about or less than $100 (in fact I think I'm being conservative here, it probably costs China around $50)...something China has the capability. Furthermore, the AK is in many ways superior to the M-16. In Somalia we were inflicting multiple gunshot wounds on people who were suffering from famine conditions and they were still getting back on their feet and continued fighting. However, their AK rounds took us out far more efficiently. Furthermore, an AK is far more suited to field conditions than American/Western firearms. As an American serviceman; I'd ditch my M-16 in heartbeat for an AK.

At 2/3/08 11:13 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/3/08 07:02 PM, K-RadPie wrote: 18-45... That's a hell of a lot more than 10-20%.

I don't really count the older folk as able to serve... Probably below 40.

However, my point still stands that we would definitely not be able to arm 100,000,000 men.

Let's say America was invaded by China (hypothetically). I think it would be possible to arm about 100,000,000 "men". In such a dire situation we would pressing into service males aged 15/16-60. Furthermore, because of the 2nd Amendment much of this force could readily be armed from civilian stockpiles. My AK isn't full-auto and cannot fire in burst, but I don't think I'm the spray and pray type either. Everyone I grew up with has a hunting rifle...so we'd be pretty sniper heavy.

Also our values have been changing in regards to women in combat...so I could see the ranks of this hypothetical militia swelling with women. Especially the women in rural areas where if they do not know how to handle a gun...at least they don't have an unreasonable fear of them.

At 2/3/08 07:53 PM, magnostreak wrote:

At 1/24/08 07:15 PM, PubicTears wrote: What country has the best army? I mean soldiers equipment, and training etc. Not the amount of soldiers the country has. So who do you think and why?

Germany, there good at killing people

I second that. German soldiers are among the most disciplined, and probably among the smartest. Not to mention that they have some nasty artillery and tanks.

German Infantry for the win!
(US Navy for the win. Israeli Air Force pilots for the win)

At 2/4/08 02:11 PM, RommelTJ wrote: German Infantry for the win!
(US Navy for the win. Israeli Air Force pilots for the win)

;
I agree with the idea that having the biggest & the most in no way means you have the best.
which is why vietnam & somalia happened & a couple dozen rebels are keeping a massive American & Iraq force on constant alert.
Same problem in Afganistan, American, Canadian, U.N are there & a small amount of taliban are still causing mayhem.