Does the U.S. have the most powerful armed forces?

Why? Who can rival it or who has the potential in the future? I think so due to logistics but I think China will rival it in 20 to 30 years. I do not believe Russia can on a conventional level because it will always lack quantity due to funding which was the strength of the USSR. Russia seems more determined to develop its nuclear arsenal than strengthen its conventional forces.

 

Half a dozen carrier battle forces continuosly in operation, the finest planes and best equipment, without a doubt,the US is the best.

However, Rumsfeld exposed that the US has a vulnerability with a McClellan type of strategy in place with the wrong person making the decisions.

(FYI-in The War of Northern Aggression, McClellan tried harder to not lose the war than to win it. Lincoln finally wised up and replaced him with a fighter-Grant).

Since 2003, some troops have been back to Iraq for their third tour, and some troops have never been. One bad aspect of ding dong winning the election is that he'll insure that a fighter won't be in charge.

 

I think China can, there are always countries that can oppose the Us if banded together.
As everything,anything can change instantly.


Herr

 

I can agree with China, assuming their economy continues to grow. They have the manpower to defeat it's neighbors, but with the paltry navy they have, I doubt they'd have much success fighting overseas with conventional forces. Now if you're talking 20 or 30 years, could be a possibility. But with that timeline, I wouldn't write of the Ruskies. Their economy COULD turn around. We already know they have the capability of building a formidable military.

But if Obama gets elected, all bets are off. Our military will sink!

 

I'd say as a Union of friendlies, combine the forces of Western Europe, and you got yourselves a diverse and cultural superpower.

 

I would say that the US does have the most powerful Armed Forces. Its only weakness is its leadership.

With its stealth technology, the US does have the capability to strike at targets crucial to the enemy's fighting capability. The US has a very strong navy and air force. The only armed forces to rival the US would be it's allies, Great Britain. Russia and China have the manpower but the quality of that manpower is questionable and the technology is not there but Russia does have an edge over China in that respect. Though, China and Russia are not pushovers either. They still need to be shown respect.

 

+1 Made even worse when civilians (Government) try to run a war!

 

True enough. At times, I saw a vietnam repeat of late.

 

Once upon a time people used to compare art, culture, wealth, economical power. This brought golden ages to many countries like in Holland (17th century), Britain and France ( 17th to 19th century), Italy (Renaissance) etc... The US has it's turn since 1945 the question is until when ? That's the way the world goes, for the time being they have a couple of billions to find. China could be the next, or why not a united Europe, or Russia, or India? Who knows?
It simply does not make sense to compare two countries which have the bomb. In case of a confrontation they would both press the button.. simply as that.


.

 

Is that not the same thing as NATO ? They could not even handle the Serbs.

 

Russia does not have the manpower that they had under the USSR. Their population is only around 145 million. They now have to learn how to fight with a numerical disadvantage. They need to reclaim the Ukraine to reestablish themselves.

 

It's coming.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/EU_Dreams_Of_Common_Army_999.html

 

Don't count on it anytime soon.

There is serious dissension in the EU, the government couldn't even get their new constitution ratified. My brother-in-law lives in Britain and claims the problem is that the EU is a dictatorship of bureaucrats and that very few British or other Europeans feel it should be granted more power. He has even predicted a revolt of the people against the EU at some point in the future.

With problems like that a consolidated military is not in the immediate future.

 

Hi Lias, well-said and thank you very much for making me day with your posting.

Take care and best regards-Carl.

 

Well-said Ike, I couldn't agree more. I can't give you another yet so will try rep points instead.

[Note} edit: Can't give more reps yet so will have to later. ;-))

 

It took over a century to unite the USA (from the French and Indian war until the Civil war) so it will probably take as long to unite Europe, if not longer. Who does remember political fights between the Virginians and the Bostonians during the 18th century? Give Europe a few more decades. There is already a Franco-German brigade and there are joined customs/cops patrols in many neigbouring countries. The joined declaration about the stockmarket is another example that shows that the EU can work too.

 

Good point. At their peak they were at 293k (1991). China is at 1.3 billion followed by India 1.1 billion. No one else comes close.

 

Russia will have to adjust as they will not have the numerical advantage in the future. They will more than likely be outnumbered but they are a very skilled people.

 

Precisely why I said "Don't count on it anytime soon."

You forgot to mention that for almost 200 years, the various sections of what is now the US refused to spend money for the defense of the whole country; it was even difficult to get funds for local defenses. I very much doubt if it is any different in the EU. NATO has been an adequate defense for more than half a century; it's going to be extremely difficult to convince your tax-payers that they really need a unified EU military.