All The World's Militaries...

[OrionHunter]

To even think that you would compare the ferocity of Taliban against the likes of half naked Maoists in Nagaland is laughable at best.

Blah blah and more blah! You're as clueless as they come. MAOISTS CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH NAGAS as you stress in your post above!!! You basic assumption is way, way off the mark. Shows you know squat what you're talking about. Maoists are a rag tag circus, compared to the Nagas who are ferocious fighters. Get your facts straight before spewing baloney.

Thanks.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Blah blah and more blah! You're as clueless as they come. MAOISTS CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH NAGAS as you stress in your post above!!! You basic assumption is way, way off the mark. Shows you know squat what you're talking about. Maoists are a rag tag circus, compared to the Nagas who are ferocious fighters. Get your facts straight before spewing baloney.

Thanks.

Couldn't care less Noob

I am yet to read a research paper or even a decent article from a well published source describing the ferocity of the Naga Rebels, heck the world does not even know that they even exist. They have a long long way to go before they can even be considered equals against the likes of Taliban or LTTE. Its only you, and when i say you i literally mean you who is advocating like a cheer leader on their behalf. Tell you what, come back to me when you can find me a single incident of an IED(with high explosive yield) attack followed by an ambush with heavy weapons?

Its laughable that you are insisting on calling on a rag tag militia a professional guerilla force when they haven't even setup a proper IED attack which is a hallmark of a professional guerilla force . Keep living in fantasy land my friend, there is no law against that.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I actually i feel like i am talking to an imbecile still in a rehab. To even think that you would compare the ferocity of Taliban against the likes of half naked Maoists in Nagaland is laughable at best.

Do remind me, what kind of heavy weaponry do these people have? Last i checked, they still lacked the heavy weaponry required to actually fight a real battle. You want to compare them to the likes of Taliban using heavy automatic weapons which also includes RPG's. When was the last time the Naga's were setting up massive IED's right, left and centre on IA's supply routes. Heck, do the Naga's even know how to make a proper IED? When was the last time a Naga warrior blew himself up. They don't even have an international backer that can provide them with proper training. They are in the middle of nowhere with bare minimum means of getting war fighting supplies in. Not to mention, they don't even have the funds to fight the likes of Indian Army.

What India faces in Kashmir and Nagaland is child's play compared to what the US faces in Afghanistan. There is a reason why even the mighty Soviets were frustrated. The culture of asymmetric warfare in Afghanistan goes back hundreds of years, kids are trained to fight from the day they take birth. This inherent culture of guns and warfare does not exist in what you face in Nagaland.

Its laughable how ignorant you are. Its good to be patriotic, but it is stupid to be blindly patriotic. The reason why the US has the best Army in the world is simply because they have the most funds. They are the most well trained and disciplined soldiers in the world. So get off your high horse and stop living in a dream land.

Just one thing, though: for a guy bestowed the title of "Think Tank" you are pretty dumb as it gets....
Just read the bold and underlined part (of what you have written) again:
There are no Maoists in Nagaland. There were insurgents there earlier; who BTW had no connection with Maoist idealogy. They hoped for a separate homeland; that insurgency was doused and today there is a Naga Regt. in the Indian Army!
Next thing; they never were and still are not half-naked! They were always well clothed, to the extent of aping whatever Western Fashions which were in vogue.They have been and still are very educated; speak good English among other things and love American Rockstars!

You do need to get educated a bit on some matters, Junior.
Else you'll come up with more amusing stuff like this.

 

[American_Millenium]

Bottom line is: The world's militaries COMBINED could not.

...Could not take on the US.

Put aside the nuclear perspective for now and focus on how to take on US conventionally.

Bottom line is: The world's militaries COMBINED could not.

We Asked a Military Expert if All the World's Armies Could Shut Down the US | VICE United States

Makes sense.

If Canada and Mexico were used as a springboard, we'd be in some trouble, but seeing as how all of the world combined does not have anywhere near the number of 5th generation stealth fighters, nuclear powered super-carriers, and 8-10k ton destroyers, I don't see how they could successfully invade us.

Not gonna happen! 

@jhungary

thanks for your detail view on the point. but i have one question. did US attacked any of the adversary immediately when they felt insecure about them?

NO.

US first crippled the economy of that nation by enforcing sanctions.

same thing will happen with US, if the whole world decides to attack them. first attack will be on US economy. US will be starved for each & every single item it imports & is important for military use.

why are you assuming that the world army need place their forcess directly on the borders of US?

the world navy will take out US navy first.

US has 10 carriers and so dose the rest of the forcess combined.
US has 61 Destroiers and rest of the world has close to 130
US has 71 submarines and the rest of the world has close to 300 (all data from GFP)

Now what time will the world navyes take to destroy the mighty US navy .

once the US navy is destroied then it is very much possible to defeat US.

What 10 carriers? One US Nimitz-class displaces more tonnage than half the world's so-called carriers. Stop kidding yourself.

In the same token, one Arleigh-Burke class displaces more than the destroyer-class of any other Navy, excepting Japan and Korea (which both use the same Burke-class hull type, bought from none other than the USA).

Our submarines are also second to none, with the UK and Russia being the only nations on Earth which could field subs anywhere near our technological standards. Including attack subs from countries like India and Iran makes your example less credible.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Just one thing, though: for a guy bestowed the title of "Think Tank" you are pretty dumb as it gets....

Jealous

Just read the bold and underlined part (of what you have written) again:
There are no Maoists in Nagaland. There were insurgents there earlier; who BTW had no connection with Maoist idealogy. They hoped for a separate homeland; that insurgency was doused and today there is a Naga Regt. in the Indian Army!

My mistake and i acknowledge it

But does it change what i am trying to say, NO.

Next thing; they never were and still are not half-naked! They were always well clothed, to the extent of aping whatever Western Fashions which were in vogue.They have been and still are very educated; speak good English among other things and love American Rockstars!

Good for them but how good are their fighting skills? Your buddy over here is advocating that they are more ferocious than the Taliban.

You do need to get educated a bit on some matters, Junior.
Else you'll come up with more amusing stuff like this.

You know what, i will give it to you guys. You guys are a patriotic bunch, that you are even willing to forgo the most ridiculous claims your buddy was making just to score some brownie points. I thought an Elite Member with over 8000 points would demonstrate some maturity, but ah well i guess i was wrong. How exactly do you expect me to react when i read bull sh** like this?

We Indians have been trying to teach American GIs how to fight an insurgency in our Counter Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School in India, but they don't seem to have learned much! They need to put their heads to it and show more seriousness in their training.

What Americans are facing is just a band of yahoos who've been spinning the GIs around on their fingers because the Yanks haven't a clue on how to fight in a counter insurgency environment, seeing that they are geared mostly for fighting conventional battles.

So don't shoot from the hip when you yourself haven't served in an insurgency environment in extremely hostile terrain facing insurgents who are tougher and more motivated than the Taliban. Yes, I'm talking of the Nagas. Heard of them before?

 

[rockstarIN]

@notorious_eagle,

You can't compare Taliban Vs Naga just like that. Both are in different environment.

Nagas got heavy weaponry, they shop from east asia.

Thai Man Arrested for Alleged Involvement in International Arms Deal | Chiang Rai Times English Language Newspaper

Contrary to the popular belief, they are educated, 95% Christians but with fierce loyalty to the waring tribes. You do not need outside support if you have good weaponry in a state with full of jungles, mountains along with intense rain and worst climate conditions. Afganistan & Pakistani tribal areas are quite different from the forest areas and the jungle warfare school concentrates on jungle warfare against guerrilla style attack.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Jealous

B@lls !!!

 

[jhungary]

[quote="DejanSRB, post: 4936311, member: Chinese rule of South and East Asia for almost 3000 years.[/quote]

Since when did Chinese rule south east Asia for 3000 years?

In the 5000 years of Chinse history, 4000 of those are either split between different warring faction or ruling the northern Asia

 

[Nike]

@jhungary, from what you said in the first page, i made a conclusion

To invade US mainland right now the whole world need to massively amass around 120 carrier as big as Nimitz Class, more than 800 Aegis type destroyer, around 1200 either conventionally or nuclear powered attack submarines, more than 200 Amphibious Assault ship at least as big as Tarawa or if you cannot afford it Mistral Class will do, around 16000 4++ gen. fighter aircraft, more than 2400 heavy bomber with the same caliber as B52 or better, 10000 Landing Ship Tank, around 60.000 logistic supply ships, 2400 or so heavy airlift such as A400M, more than 8000 units of C130J class medium airlift, 96.000 3rd gen. MBT like Leopard2, Challenger or T90MS, more than 48000 amphibious tank like LVT7A, more than 120000 IFV, 2400 heavy oiler ships, and more than 180 millions of soldiers to facing against more than 40 to 50 million armed forces of US which consist of armed resident, local militia, National guard and so on, with their abundant weapons at their disposal. It will be more colossal than Operation Overlord and very impossible task to do Sorry for my bad English

 

[jhungary]

@jhungary, from what you said in the first page, i made a conclusion

To invade US mainland right now the whole world need to massively amass around 120 carrier as big as Nimitz Class, more than 800 Aegis type destroyer, around 1200 either conventionally or nuclear powered attack submarines, more than 200 Amphibious Assault ship at least as big as Tarawa or if you cannot afford it Mistral Class will do, around 16000 4++ gen. fighter aircraft, more than 2400 heavy bomber with the same caliber as B52 or better, 10000 Landing Ship Tank, around 60.000 logistic supply ships, 2400 or so heavy airlift such as A400M, more than 8000 units of C130J class medium airlift, 96.000 3rd gen. MBT like Leopard2, Challenger or T90MS, more than 48000 amphibious tank like LVT7A, more than 120000 IFV, 2400 heavy oiler ships, and more than 180 millions of soldiers to facing against more than 40 to 50 million armed forces of US which consist of armed resident, local militia, National guard and so on, with their abundant weapons at their disposal. It will be more colossal than Operation Overlord and very impossible task to do Sorry for my bad English

actually, no.

What i was saying about 12 :1 is the groud troop level, if you cannot achieve Sea and Air superiority. You don't need 120 air craft carrier to beat the US Navy, if you play it well, you can beat them with what you got currently.

12 : 1 is ground troop level to overcome the garrison, for every defender you need 12 attacker to overcome it. If you have either sea or air (which does not make sense) you will need roughly 7 : 1. and if you have both Sea and land, you need about 4 to 5 : 1 depend on troop quality.

This has been widely studied by military historian

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I think people should put things in perspective with Afghanistan.
Back in World War 2 Hitler's army rolled into France and within a short time crushed France's military, put in power a puppet government of their own choosing, and had Hitler himself in Paris checking out the place.

France had resistance fighters who would would pick off German soldiers for the entire duration of the war.

Is anybody here going to claim that France didn't technically lose the war since their resistance fighters never gave up? Of course not. France lost and the few hundred or so German soldiers the French resistance picked off every year were inconsequential. They'd snipe German soldiers in Paris and blow up convoys/trains. BUT no historian points to that and says France "defeated" or bravely "held off" the Nazis. People beat their chests boasting about the great achievement of the French resistance because the Nazis couldn't search every cave and every valley to crush every single one of them - so well that means they succeeded! Well unfortunately I don't think the rest of the word views it that way. The rest of the world sees it as a tragic French defeat. The resistance was pretty much a footnote. Yes they were a constant pain to the Germans but not enough to call it a "defeat".

It is almost the end of 2013. The US lost 147 soldiers this year. The US picks off more Taliban with just drones than their own losses. There's a "puppet" government installed by the US. Presidents fly over and visit.

Put things in perspective. Beat your chest if you want.

 

[phylumchordata]

tough time....? are you kidding....? if untrained, un-armed or armed with century year old weapons, no air-force or naval force, no command and control system,... mean TALIBAN give a tough time to Americans and they accepted it, then what is the need to come face to face for fight to US with China and Russia? Of course, America used Talibans to crush that time power of Russia, now the same policy is adopted by them i.e. Russia and China is probably feeding Afghan Talibans to fight against Americans... I am not speaking of Pakistani pseudo-Talibans, of course every one knows that whose puppets are they and on whose interests they are working right now... but Americans are focusing wrong game right now,

viets owned Americans big time and a few thousand mujhadeens with klashkinovs can give americans eternal nightmares. Americans are phobic to land combat and rely much on aerial attacks.

 

[ejaz007]

I think people should put things in perspective with Afghanistan.
Back in World War 2 Hitler's army rolled into France and within a short time crushed France's military, put in power a puppet government of their own choosing, and had Hitler himself in Paris checking out the place.

France had resistance fighters who would would pick off German soldiers for the entire duration of the war.

Is anybody here going to claim that France didn't technically lose the war since their resistance fighters never gave up? Of course not. France lost and the few hundred or so German soldiers the French resistance picked off every year were inconsequential. They'd snipe German soldiers in Paris and blow up convoys/trains. BUT no historian points to that and says France "defeated" or bravely "held off" the Nazis. People beat their chests boasting about the great achievement of the French resistance because the Nazis couldn't search every cave and every valley to crush every single one of them - so well that means they succeeded! Well unfortunately I don't think the rest of the word views it that way. The rest of the world sees it as a tragic French defeat. The resistance was pretty much a footnote. Yes they were a constant pain to the Germans but not enough to call it a "defeat".

It is almost the end of 2013. The US lost 147 soldiers this year. The US picks off more Taliban with just drones than their own losses. There's a "puppet" government installed by the US. Presidents fly over and visit.

Put things in perspective. Beat your chest if you want.

Number of people killed is not a factor in determining who is winning or loosing.

Their are multiple factors including who controls or holds how much area as perhaps most important factor. If we look at the situation on the ground US and her allies control almost 30 percent. Rest is not in their control. Then how come they win the war.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

> If we look at the situation on the ground US and her allies control almost 30 percent. Rest is not in >their control. Then how come they win the war

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...th_regions_and_departments-occupation.svg.png

The Germans didn't even bother occupying all of France either.
Are you still going to say the French won????? Or even were *close* to winning??

 

[agent_ali]

Vietnamies owned Americans big time and a few thousand mujhadeens with klashkinovs can give americans eternal nightmares. Americans are phobic to land combat and rely much on aerial attacks.

100 % agree