World Military Strength Rankings
A-At least we're on the top 10...
i think england could take india
Anybody can take India, take a shit on it that is.
Space wars when
Nice meme "rank".
>Arabia Saudi
>Butthurt by Yemen
>India
>Pakistan
>Japan
>Pakistan
>more powerful than us
...
That's spending though.
No matter how much money the saudis spend they'll always be bad at war.
>KSA
>#5
doubt tbqh
how are they stronger than nuclear armed countries
wow, WTF is wrong with me
Saudi Arabia*
Give Saudi Arabia more time before you place it at #5 for fuck's sake.
Now they have an insane military budget but they are lacking in the experience department.
I assume they're not taking nukes into a count, and are just basing it on military strength alone. Otherwise, yeah, having nukeless KSA but not Pakistan, which actually has nukes, would make no sense.
KSA uses Pakistan as a vassal state for nuclear weapons.
*account
Jesus fuck what is wrong with me
Fucking hell not this meme ranking.
>Get beaten by the three biggest shitholes on earth
>"W-W-Well at least our army is the most expensive"
Besides Vietnam (which was arguably the fault of hippies), which shitholes would these be, pray tell?
Let's be real. The U.S could wipe out those shitholes off the Earth if it wanted to. The issue is the domestic policies that prevent the U.S from half-assing a war.
The U.S can either go all-in or not at all when it comes to warfare. If it half-asses a war with limited domestic support for it, then we'll get BTFO.
you can't even wipe the ass of some camel fuckers in the middle east
NK and Iraq the first time
No you couldn't. You razed Iraq to the ground yet completely lost control to turban-wearing marsh arabs in half a decade.
You're cutting yourselves on those edges.
When the U.S went into Iraq it wasn't a full-on war nor did the government have the full backing of the people. It was a half-assed war that was probably done for the oil.
Let's not forget, however, that the U.S obliterated the Iraqi government. Militarily, it was an obvious win for the U.S.
Strategically, though, it was an epic fail. But that's more about how we managed the whole situation AFTER establishing military control.
shut the fuck up you dirty arab monkey
wow rude
asymmetrical warfare really doesn't count sweden
i mean unless you murder literally everyone (which nobody has the stomach for anymore) there is no way to actually "win"
that's why they came in with this 'hearts and minds' idea for the middle east which backfired when they should have just done what they're doing to ISIS right now and bomb people without invading
...
he shitposts every fucking where. I'm filtering his dune coon ass
Nah the government should have just kept out of Iraq.
If we were really concerned about Saddam's war-crimes, then we should have sanctioned him or negotiated somehow.
Then again, it's not like we actually gave a fuck about the Iraqi people to begin with.
Japan has terrific defensive capabilities. They're comparable to Israel in that regard (negating nuclear capability).
What part of what I said was a shitpost?
>i mean unless you murder literally everyone (which nobody has the stomach for anymore) there is no way to actually "win"
>Be Russia
>Invade Crimea
>Annex Crimea
>Keep Crimea
>Be China
>Suppress Tibetan nationalists
>Keep Tibet
>Bush sr. ordering the Iraqi to rise up against Saddam in exchange for American support
>They do
>America immediately signs white peace
>Saddam slaughters everyone
>Hey how come ya'll don't trust us no more
How do Saudis have a military that's 60% more powerful than Great Britian?
>Nah the government should have just kept out of Iraq.
yeh but after the twin tower thing there was no way america wasn't going to make someone accountable
>then we should have sanctioned him or negotiated somehow.
agree
ghadaffi wasn't so bad either. they were stabilizing influences even if they weren't perfect or even nice people
too late now, can't unkill them. i feel like if even the tiniest bit of research was done we'd all have been so much better off.
this is all naturally suadi arabia's fault in the end tho, you better not be one of them
Saudi spends 12% of their gdp on military, just a reminder
>Invade Crimea
ethnically russian wanteded to secede
>Suppress Tibetan nationalists
literally surrounded by china, literally a buddhist theocracy
Well they do buy a lot of our gear from us.
That's because the U.S. doesn't exactly rule with an iron fist.
Anyway, criticizing American military capability for what happened in Iraq is retarded. The failure of Iraq was a MANAGEMENT issue. If you look at the invasion from a purely militaristic perspective, the U.S absolutely pummeled Iraqi forces. But of course, what really matters is how you manage the situation after everything is said and done, and the U.S government simply didn't have the competence to manage Iraq the same way Saddam and his regime did.
They don't. Saudi Arabia is in the process of beefing up its military due to increasing tensions with Iran. They're spending around 10 percent of their budget on military and defense which makes it appear that they're super tough. In reality, Britain would pummel Saudi Arabia for the simple fact that they have far more experience and a better navy/air force over all.
>yeh but after the twin tower thing there was no way america wasn't going to make someone accountable
We should have invaded Sri Lanka or Burundi.
>this is all naturally suadi arabia's fault in the end tho, you better not be one of them
No, it's not all Saudi's fault. It's this whole feud between Saudi Arabia and Iran that's to blame.
>Iraq the first time
You mean the Gulf War in the 90s? The one where we went in with the goal of forcing the Iraqi army out of Kuwait and indisputably did so?
>No you couldn't. You razed Iraq to the ground yet completely lost control to turban-wearing marsh arabs in half a decade.
It's not our fault the interim government we set up ending up being so shit. And it certainly can't be called a military loss.
The goal wasn't to "keep" Iraq as some sort of 51st state. That wouldn't even work or make sense since they're on the other side of the planet from us. Unless by "keep" you mean "have a puppet government that will do whatever we say," in which case, again, the worst you could say is that the one we set up could've been better.
Tbf though, Saddam had literally nothing to do with 9/11. All things considered the war was pointless and a strategic mistake. Saddam was a monster, but even Cheney realized and specifically mentioned that Saddam's death and the fall of his government would force the question of who would take their place, and the region would be completely fucked if that question were answered incorrectly, so to speak.
Lesser Britain's army is pathetic for a reason, they're in one of the safest positions in the world and have a couple of nukes. Saudi Arabia hates all of their neighbors.
The goal was to gain nothing and lose everything? Fucking americans, man
japan cant even have an army lol
The main goal was to remove Saddam. The secondary goal was to get that sweet, sweet oil.
>Fucking americans, man
why do scandis think they're so much better than everyone else?
it's a recurring theme and i'm a bit tired of it honestly
>We should have invaded Sri Lanka
Iraq needed a monster, though.
Think about the history of that region.
Iraq is literally a fake country drawn up during the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916. Saddam realized that the only way that Arabs, Kurds, and other groups could live together is through a tough secular leadership.
I don't agree with many of the things that he did and he was a bad guy. But he kept shit under control. Anyone who says that Iraq is better off now than it was 20 years ago is a liar and a shill for corporate interests.
Yeah, what's the point in having a big stick of you're too retarded to swing it?
don't worry i'll protect u
Military**
They can most defintely have a defense. And with the news that the U.S might pull out of Japan in the upcoming years, they are beefing up their defense and even beginning to build up a military again.
kek I was hoping you'd see that
No hard feelings, Sri Lankabro.
It was doing fine before he took power by, you know, executing thousands. It's still worse off under ISIS of course, during Saddam's reign if you were caught scribbling on a black flag he'd send a death squad to eradicate your entire family.
Yeah, that is a good point.
>Anyone who says that Iraq is better off now than it was 20 years ago is a liar and a shill for corporate interests.
Trust me, I'm certainly not saying we improved Iraq.
There are literally countries out there who don't have 2 (two) aircraft carriers with ramps. Unbelievable.
Lel
>Korea
>SA
>India
>Japan
Trash ranking.
>countries with nukes below countries that doesn't have nukes
Que?
Number 15, not too bad for such a small shitty place t b h
We has.
But we has no allowed to ”Preemptive strike” by law.it sucks.
I want to remove bunda land with nagato:(
The list isn't taking nukes into account. It's basing it purely on the strength of the countries' armed forces.
That both the UK and France have nukes should put them higher than Japan and Saudi Arabia
And how is that measured? Pure numbers?
>ramped aircraft carriers
what the fuck
What does the strength of the countries' armed forces mean ? Did they just look at numbers or take experience into account ?
I feel the need to point out that the top 5 are all characterized by being third world shitholes ravaged by violence and death
What use is an army if you can't even protect your people from your own government?
>What use is an army if you can't even protect your people from your own government?
Really makes you think.
How can you put SA at 5 when they are getting bfto by Yemen niggers ?
A
From the website, it's based on analysis of military assets based on materials and quantifiable means. So I'd say it's probably based on numbers and equipment quality.
Imagine if we nuked them.
>It was doing fine before he took power by
And much worse after him.
>My father rode a camel. I drive a Lamborghini. My son drives a Lamborghini. His son will ride a camel
I don't, is not like there are 100 thousand of them in a single city
This list is pretty vague desu.
It can change anytime, since there are countries on lower position that can skyrocket right up when they are under a threat or actually conflict.
Have another meme list.
5.2% seems pretty excessive for such a poor country. Most our enemies are retarded sand niggers who can barely figure out how stones work, we don't need to spend so much
Delusional US cocksucker
Military Budgets of 2016.
Nice proxy kiddo
>Saudi Arabia
>13.7%
Are nukes just not part of "military strength" because it's 2016?
I'm as American as you. ;-]
Nukes aren't counted because almost no country is stupid enough to use them except as a very last resort. Only two nukes have ever actually been used in warfare, and those were the two that we dropped on Japan.
Countries with nukes never fight each other, because a nuclear war would literally destroy the planet. The Cold War was literally just us and Russia really wanting to fuck each other up, but being held back by fear of nuclear war. The only reason North Korea still exists is because the Kim family has nukes and uses them to basically hold their own population hostage, since they know that no one will call their bluff. Because any leader in their right mind realizes how dangerous nukes are, and how incredibly bad of an idea it would be to even put the nuke card on the table.
The day that nukes have a real presence in actual warfare is the day immediately before Fallout happens.
Wait...
Brazil has more gdp than Australia?
Australia: $1.2 trillion (2015,Nominal)
Labour force: 12 million (2016)
Brazil: $2.0 trillion (Nominal) (2017 est.)
Labour force: 109 million
Yeah but only those with nukes will be nuked. Since everyone else can be taken with conventional warfare there's no point in wasting nukes.
Maybe that's what you meant, I'm not sure what happened to the rest of the world in Fallout. Maybe Europe is just chilling.
You are a seriously deluded user.
"Military strength" is literally what you wrote
>Countries with nukes never fight each other, because a nuclear war would literally destroy the planet.
That's military strength. And if you somehow think that a nuclear armed nation doesn't have a new advantage on a non-nuclear state, then you are also an idiot.
Yeah, makes sense.
>never actually used because their use would basically guarantee the absolute destruction of the user and cause irreparable damage to the planet
>practical military strength
I'll bet you're one of those meme kids who unironically thinks nuking Mosul would be a good idea.
No, user. You are the idiot.
t-thanks
very rude and i did not appreciate
Because you're talking out of your ass. India has one of the most advanced anti-ballistic missile programs in the world. England would be glassed, along with all the other Euronigger animals on this board.
I'm pretty sure that's more what Germans and Scandinavians are into.
Yeah Tibet were slavers lol
North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan
How the fuck is Japan so high?
Their national defense plan boils down to 'call the U.S. for help'.
>Their national defense plan boils down to 'call the U.S. for help'.
Yea, because the only aggressor in their area is fucking China.
I actually like Colombo, Jebal Ali and Dubai are kinda crap. Salalah is nice. I miss Oman. The only nice place in the Middle East.
>he doesn't know what ramped aircraft carriers are
Why are they wearing those funny suits
I would have thought UK was 2nd, 3rd, or 4th.
Mainly due to their being on par tech wise with us.
Don't we have some military tech sharing agreement?
I know what they are.
But ramps? u srs?
>Germany 1.2%
This list is obviously and totally shit tho.
>Maybe that's what you meant, I'm not sure what happened to the rest of the world in Fallout. Maybe Europe is just chilling.
Maybe literally
>A global average surface cooling of –7 °C to –8 °C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4 °C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5 °C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land … Cooling of more than –20 °C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30 °C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions.
>In addition, they found that this cooling caused a weakening of the global hydrological cycle, reducing global precipitation by about 45%. As for the 50 Tg case involving one third of current nuclear arsenals, they said that the simulation "produced climate responses very similar to those for the 150 Tg case, but with about half the amplitude," but that "the time scale of response is about the same." They did not discuss the implications for agriculture in depth, but noted that a 1986 study which assumed no food production for a year projected that "most of the people on the planet would run out of food and starve to death by then" and commented that their own results show that, "This period of no food production needs to be extended by many years, making the impacts of nuclear winter even worse than previously thought."