I am an Army of One…
Where do I rate?
Think college football.
College football has two polls: Coach’s and Associated Press. Often, teams are ranked differently in the two polls, which causes some discrepency in who’s better than whom.
Happy
As RickJay said, the remarkable thing is the wide difference (the “delta”) between the US and Everyone Else.
It is hard to imagine any military, or any Army threatening America’s overall dominance for thirty years. Still invincible is strong word. Many dirty tricks and special situation would still lead America to defeat.
As a number of brash young Scots proved a long time ago at Bannockburn, any army can be defeated given favorable circumstances. Exceptional leaders from Turenne to Giap to Kagame have repeated the lesson time and again.
That having been said, here are James Dunnigan’s Ten Armies You Don’t Want to Fight: China, the United States, India, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan and Iran.
Note that eight out of the ten “meanest” armies border with one another at some point in their geography, and if you include the United States’ presence in South Korea, only Israel stands uncontested in its own 'hood.
What am I saying? The United States now has the distinction of having forces bordering or within South Korea and North Korea (via South Korea), Pakistan, China, Iran and Turkey (via Afghanistan and Iraq). Only the newly formed 'Stans keep the U.S. and Russia from being eye-to-eye. I think the U.S. now has the distinction of being cozied up real close to more dangerous military power than even China.
nobody’s army is invincible if their political leaders are sufficiently stupid. And boy are they, for the most part.
#1 - a force with:
China’s numbers
USA’s infantry technology and sheer military spending
Britain’s special forces training
Canada’s naval technology and SAR ability
North Korea’s intimidation factor
The Americans dependence on superior technology will likely be the cause of any American military defeat, IMHO.
Of course, it’s also what supplies most of their victories, so that sounds a little silly. They may be dependant on it, but it works. Note all that talk last year about potential tactics that the Iraqis and Al Queda could use to nullify that advantage, which in practice didn’t happen.
OTOH, since the OP was talking about armies, as opposed to militaries as a whole, the US is actually not so far ahead as you’d think, most of their really nice toys are in the air or on\under the seas. Not that their tanks and stuff aren’t impressive, but there are several other countries with comparable stuff, or larger forces of older vehicles. No-one else has even one supercarrier or stealth aircraft.
Modern armies don’t fight alone.
Satellite support, predators, offshore missile support, combat air support, interdiction, and supply logistics are all unified by modern military doctrine.
The concept of unified operations is one of many force multipliers available to US military commanders.
Oh, and don’t forget to count on alliances. When Brazil invades Nova Scotia, chances are Canada will not stand alone. Besides, the Canadians are still the most experienced military force on the planet, even including the US.
Tris
I don’t know about that. The bulk of land fighting done by the US army these days is with rifles and artillery. The technology behind those things hasn’t changed that much in the past few hundred years. Where really high-tech stuff is used nowadays is primarily logistics and intelligence.
Sea and air warfare are different. The technology of the weapons systems there is constantly improving. But you can’t take land without an army.
We can break things down into categories.
First, the US. More money, more toys, lots and lots of people. No other country has the logistical infrastructure to put hundreds of thousands of troops anywhere in the world on a few months notice. The US has capabilities that no other country has, such as stealth planes. But of course the US isn’t invincible, look at Vietnam. On the other hand, look at Iraq, where we walked over a very large, well equiped army fighting to defend its homeland. And on the other hand, look at Iraq again. The US could defeat any military on earth, barring China or Russia, but what could it accomplish doing that? What happens after the last tank battle and airstrike?
Next, China and Russia. Old and/or substandard equipment and technology but lots of it, and huge manpower reserves. China and Russia are essentially invulnerable to invasion, but don’t have the logistic power to really threaten any countries except their next door neighbors. They are mostly poor, but their huge size lets them field very large conscript armies, and quantity has a quality all its own. If China or Russia get their economic houses in order they could be very dangerous.
Next, NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, and Israel. These are professional armies with advanced equipment up to and including nuclear missiles. They often meet or exceed US technology in a few areas, but fall behind in others, and don’t have the massive manpower and spending of the US. For instance, quality-wise the British Navy is in many ways superior to the US navy, but they don’t have the numbers or sheer breadth the US has. The US doesn’t always have the very best equipment, but they don’t they almost always have something very close. Most of these militaries are designed for defense of the home country (or home region for NATO countries) and are all allied with each other and the US. While they may not agree on every intervention, they can be counted on the defend each other (except Isreal).
Next, we have various dangerous third world armies. North Korea, Syria, Iran, India, Iraq (formerly), Pakistan, etc. These are countries with significant military investment compared to the size of their economies, often with authoritarian governments that can be very unpredictable. Often the military itself controlls the country and the whole country is run for the benefit of the military. These countries are willing to spend the pennies they get from taxing the peasants on military equipment.
And last, we have various third world armies that function only as internal police forces, public works projects, and prestige builders. Generally small, poorly equiped, poorly paid and ineffective. But that’s generally a good thing…if these countries had effective militaries they’d probably use them to cause mischief.
I think an argument could be made that the United States is #1 through #8, followed by China, then Japan.
This makes sense. No force is perfect in all aspects. The US is currently the most formidable, but they aren’t invincible by any means. Every military has ups and downs and none is guaranteed victory. Small expert forces like the SAS could wreak havoc on larger armies by sabotaging equipment and supply lines. Its one thing to have a huge army, but its another to keep them all fed.
[slight hijack]
Is Canada really the most field experienced military?
[/slight hijack]
Lemur866, a small correction: neither Israel nor South Korea are professional armies both of these countries have conscription.
I think it also makes a difference if we are talking about this in a real world rather than in academic way. e.g. I think the U.S. Army is best in the world. Do I think it could launch a conventional invasion of China and “win” ? I have doubts.
When listing a Top ten in an Academic way, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Number 4 could whip number 9 on number 9’s home turf – or in a country closer to 9 than to 4. Maybe that is obvious and goes without being said – but I just said it
It is hard to imagine any military, or any Army threatening America’s overall dominance for thirty years. Still invincible is strong word. Many dirty tricks and special situation would still lead America to defeat
I think you hit the nail on the head. If there is a glass jaw to the American army, i9t is the unwillingness of Americans to tkae casualtiers.
i posted this thread a while ago. i hope it helps.
So, it ISN’T the KISS Army?