Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:
Not really, just because you throw money at the problem doesnt mean it will work. Look at guerrilla warfare, low cost high effectiveness.
Money, like size, isn't a sufficient metric by which to judge an army "most powerful," but it is certainly a necessary element in the overall equation.
While it is correct to say that the larger budget does not necessarily guarantee victory -- the Bolivian experience during the 1932-1935 Chaco War is an illustrative example -- it certainly confers useful advantages, as it did for the Union Army during the American Civil War, and the United States Army during the Second World War.
Let me ask you this question, which may help put the point into perspective: insurgent forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have inflicted considerable losses on Coalition forces, whether we calculate in blood or in treasure. If the roles were reversed, and the insurgent forces were invading the United States while our armed forces were on the defensive, how do you think they would fare? If we "swap" another army for the United States Army in Iraq or Afghanistan, but imposed similar limitations, how do you think that army would fare?
Despite Russia's considerable advantage in weight of numbers and air power, it did not fare as well as expected against the Georgians. That is a direct reflection of the age and quality of Russian equipment and doctrine.
$1:
May be true, I dont know for sure I am quite clueless when it comes to Navy and Air force matters.
As force multipliers and logistical support, a large blue-water navy and high-quality air force confer enormous advantage.
Israel has consistently demonstrated the value of a relatively superior air force.
$1:
Not really, at least no more than any other nation. Even if it was the case being "The most eXtreme" will not make you the best.
The United States military is a professional fighting force. It is at least as well-trained as western European militaries, and much superior to Russian and Chinese forces. Of all nations with such high standards of training, the United States fields the greatest number of troops.
$1:
Better trained, no. The most? Im sure that the Russians and Chinese who also have a larger army would have more SOF soldiers.
American special forces are certainly better-trained than their Russian and Chinese counterparts. If budgets speak nowhere else, they speak there. That's not taking into account nearly a decade of continuous deployment in combat, which can and must provide enormous relative advantage.
$1:
How is that different from any other military?
It matters when drawing comparisons against armies in the developing world, or those comprised of conscripts.
$1:
If you mean experience, Iraq may have taught the Americans some lessons, but they are looking at the Canadians right now for what to do in Afghanistan. So just because you feel you were successful in one theater does not mean you will successful in another.
Everybody looks at everybody else. The United States military is currently over-focused on the kinds of wars it is fighting -- small insurgencies. Russia has been over-focused on its nuclear mission, by contrast.
$1:
Sorry to say the Chinese are gaining fast, and will surpass the Americans in the coming future.
The Chinese economy is gaining fast, but the Chinese military and technology base lag far behind. So does Chinese military doctrine.
Sir_Francis Sir_Francis:
A better poll question would be, "Can a nation that finds itself unable to suppress an insurgency composed of illiterate bomb-making goatherds even pretend to be 'the most powerful country in the world'?"
A better question might be: why is this a valid measure of power?
CKA Uber 
Active Member 
