What's new

Turkish Armed Forces has been ranked the 6th strongest in the world!

They wouldn't use it against you, they know there are Muslims and Palestinians living among you.

but there is always Egypt. Egypt should possess a nuclear weapon at any cost.
They had no chance without it. Nor does Iran.

I don't think Israel will allow any of our neighbors to get nuclear weapons.

You are right but my point was it's wrong to think that only nuclear weapons make you true power....

If that was the case then USA, China, Russia wouldn't have spent trillions of dollars on conventional weapons after having biggest nuclear arsenal....

See you need decent war fighting capability which only conventional weapons give you....

Suppose if tomorrow someone attack NK like 9/11 then can they take revenge like USA by projecting their power??? Forget NK even China is still far away from such capability of projecting their power in any corner of the world and teach some country a lesson.....Their nukes are useless in this scenario.... that means they are not a true power.....

Conventional weapons only allowing Israel and Turkey to take everyone for a ride in their region.... in SCS nobody is afraid of Chinese nuclear weapons but they fear those scary Type 55s....

If this fire power comparison going nuclear then except USA all nuclear powers are useless as nobody including Russia comes even close to USA when it comes to power projection....

If somebody gives me a choice to make India a biggest nuclear power with biggest ICBM arsenal but to keep it's conventional capability as outdated as NK or forget all nukes and have ultra modern conventional force like Israel or SK I will opt for second choice.....
I agree with the claim that a conventional army is extremely important, not every border clash needs to end with a nuke.

However I disagree with the claim that a conventional army is able to easily defeat a nuclear strike. I don't believe South Korea has the capability. Maybe if they invest very heavily into air defenses.
 
They had no chance without it. Nor does Iran.

I don't think Israel will allow any of our neighbors to get nuclear weapons.


I agree with the claim that a conventional army is extremely important, not every border clash needs to end with a nuke.

However I disagree with the claim that a conventional army is able to easily defeat a nuclear strike. I don't believe South Korea has the capability. Maybe if they invest very heavily into air defenses.

THAAD..... can't it protect SK from NK nuclear strike??? I think SK has recently inducted THAAD....
 
According to these rankings, large means powerful.
They count numbers, not quality of weapons,training, morale etc.

So far this is probably the only list I've seen which puts training and quality into the equation.

I mean compare Israel's postion in this compared to Global Firepower. GFP is a joke.
 
So far this is probably the only list I've seen which puts training and quality into the equation.
No actually they are not. How come an Internet site have access to training doctrines of the various armed forces of the world.(they don't) or for instance do they know how many hours an army does training a year(even an army has different branches etc...) and on top of it you need to formulate it training into a coefficient and apply to the overall equation(which is not the case)..

Quality is the same stuff.... for instance which one is better T-90 or M1A1? First of all you need to inspect all subsystems, For instance one's engine might be better but other one's engine might want less maintenance. Imagine doing this for every sub-system. Then giving coefficients to tanks like T.90 = 1.01, M1A1=1.02 Which makes M1A1 better than imagine doing this for all the tanks in the world and making a coeefficent ranking.
It's impossible.

More over power coefficient would still not static, for instance you can give a power coefficient to Pantsir system.
But in the hands of a less trained army it's effect would be less. Or if the same system is not integrated in a air defense network, it's effect would be much less.

That's why these ranking sites means literally nothing and have no meaning.
 
THAAD isn't enough. You need more than one layer. North Korea doesn't need high altitude ICBMs to target its neighbor, short ranged missiles that the THAAD can't react against are enough.

Yes I think along with THAAD SK should look into Israel Iron dome type and Arrow to cover high, medium and low level altitudes.....
 
So far this is probably the only list I've seen which puts training and quality into the equation.

I mean compare Israel's postion in this compared to Global Firepower. GFP is a joke.
It's impossible to compare between so many variables and then decide what is better.
The maker of the list can't say that a country with more tanks is stronger than a country with more ships or the opposite, it's all dependent on the location.

For example Japan might be weaker than some countries that have a stronger ground army in the list but Japan is an island, there's a limit to how many ground units you can transport through the sea, and a strong navy for Japan is infinitely more valuable than a very large ground force.

So yes, while these rankings are factually correct by measuring the size of an army, it doesn't mean the biggest army is the strongest.

Yes I think along with THAAD SK should look into Israel Iron dome type and Arrow to cover high, medium and low level altitudes.....
Israel is not allowed to sell them though :(
 
No actually they are not. How come an Internet site have access to training doctrines of the various armed forces of the world.(they don't) or for instance do they know how many hours an army does training a year(even an army has different branches etc...) and on top of it you need to formulate it training into a coefficient and apply to the overall equation(which is not the case)..

Quality is the same stuff.... for instance which one is better T-90 or M1A1? First of all you need to inspect all subsystems, For instance one's engine might be better but other one's engine might want less maintenance. Imagine doing this for every sub-system. Then giving coefficients to tanks like T.90 = 1.01, M1A1=1.02 Which makes M1A1 better than imagine doing this for all the tanks in the world and making a coeefficent ranking.
It's impossible.

More over power coefficient would still not static, for instance you can give a power coefficient to Pantsir system.
But in the hands of a less trained army it's effect would be less. Or if the same system is not integrated in a air defense network, it's effect would be much less.

That's why these ranking sites means literally nothing and have no meaning.

Preach. Any one of those sites that try to boil everything down to matter of quantity and rankings list is fundementally flawed. More often then not they have surface level knowledge as to sound they know what they are talking about, when in reality they dont.
 
It's impossible to compare between so many variables and then decide what is better.
The maker of the list can't say that a country with more tanks is stronger than a country with more ships or the opposite, it's all dependent on the location.

For example Japan might be weaker than some countries that have a stronger ground army in the list but Japan is an island, there's a limit to how many ground units you can transport through the sea, and a strong navy for Japan is infinitely more valuable than a very large ground force.

So yes, while these rankings are factually correct by measuring the size of an army, it doesn't mean the biggest army is the strongest.


Israel is not allowed to sell them though :(

Why Israel is not allowed to sell it to SK? Both SK and Israel are close buddies to America.... what's the problem???
 
They had no chance without it. Nor does Iran.

I don't think Israel will allow any of our neighbors to get nuclear weapons.


I agree with the claim that a conventional army is extremely important, not every border clash needs to end with a nuke.

However I disagree with the claim that a conventional army is able to easily defeat a nuclear strike. I don't believe South Korea has the capability. Maybe if they invest very heavily into air defenses.

I think they will not ask you. We know that Iran, Turkey and KSA are looking for. I dont know al Sisi.

Why Israel is not allowed to sell it to SK? Both SK and Israel are close buddies to America.... what's the problem???

US missile technology.
 
I think they will not ask you. We know that Iran, Turkey and KSA are looking for. I dont know al Sisi.
We are not looking for nuclear weapons in nowhere near future. You know Erdogan, he's extremely populist. Those words were meant towards the interior politics. Plus, we never heard about anything new about it for a loonnng time. So, if we were looking for having nuclear everything would have been different.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom