a pic is worth 1000 words

[Eddo36]

So what country has the best military in the world? I'll give you a hint. It's not Canada.

 

Edited April 26, 2006 by Eddo36

[Bokishi]

It's Canada!

[Delta Truth]

This amount of military spending does not take into account Canada's secret army of polar bears ready to strike at a moments notice

 

 

But really its no surprise that the U.S spends that much although I believe China spending is prob alot more then they say

[Atreides]

That plan will backfire when global warming melts the ice caps and forces the polar bear army to head south in look of new habitat.

[Oerwinde]

Its like golf. So Canada wins.

[Atreides]

Do you guys like use ice pucks on ice?

[Pidesco]

So does this mean the US has enough money to provide good health care and education to all of its population but instead decides to spend it all on ways to kill foreigners?

[Hassat Hunter]

This only proves that the USA is great in wasting cash...

 

Money doesn't say jack about quality.

Is a richer person better/more handsome/awsum... the many complains about Bill Gates say otherwise.

Is a more expensively made movie better. Usually not...

Is a more expensively made game better. Usually not...

[jaguars4ever]

Nice Avy/Sig combo, Oerwinde. Shockwave FTW.

[alanschu]

Errr, horrible examples.

 

Money has a high correlation to quality when dealing with military.

 

It's what funds the R&D for pete's sake. AEGIS didn't come along by pure luck. Nor did F-14s, F-18s, etc.

 

 

On a side note, given the large amount of arms that the US exports, the net difference is probably quite a bit smaller. Canada's C7 rifle is the Canadian variant of the Colt AR-15 assault rifle, for example.

[karka]

We are a peaceful country.

[Hassat Hunter]

Money has a high correlation to quality when dealing with military.

 

Having an expansive M-16, expansive nightgoggles, expansive bulletproofvest, expansive grenades etc. etc. etc. and 2 years of training etc. doesn't mean an awfull lot if some AK-47 terrorist blows your head of.

 

An 10 million chopper is nice... but a $1000,- rocket shooting it down is nicer... "

 

EDIT:

PS. Also you can WASTE cash. JSF anyone?

Edited April 26, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[Walsingham]

Let's not get all hissy, gentlemen. Yes, things like time training, plenty of stores, and cutting edge tech cost money. The US is way ahead on all that. But I'd guess a large percentage of that spending comes from waste and mismanagement.

 

On the other hand that military spending means that noone but noone is able to dictate to the USA on anything. They can and do ignore anything they disagree with. That's a cash benefit to business, and a lifestyle benefit to their citizens. Can you imagine what we'd all be telling them to do right now if they disbanded everything and went back to 100,000 men?

 

Let them have their fun.

[Lucius]

But high quality weaponry, equipment and years of experience/training will make it all the harder for some random arab to blow off one of our guys heads.

Why I'm certain the AK-47 is a good weapon, durable and reliable, but that doesn't help much when the average user can't shoot for ****.

If our armies was to use it, perhaps modify it somewhat, it would be a kick ass weapon for desert warfare I'm sure... I guess they won't do it since the AK series, like a lot of Russian stuff, are associated with decades of enemies.

 

 

Denmark has the C-7, btw Alan. I used it myself.

 

Edit: I don't see Denmark on that list.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Lucius

[Walsingham]

True. But take the new smart rifles the US is looking at. 20,000 bucks if I remember rightly. I'm all in favour of high quality kit. But for heaven's sake! You all know I believe firmly in defence spending. But couldn't the US use a simple rifle (like the R4 or Galil, which are based on an AK) and spend a little of that money on educating the poor sods a bit? I meanthe US Army themselves are complaining that the standard of education on intake is too low.

[213374U]

Having an expansive M-16, expansive nightgoggles, expansive bulletproofvest, expansive grenades etc. etc. etc. and 2 years of training etc. doesn't mean an awfull lot if some AK-47 terrorist blows your head of.

However, having expensive equipment and adequate training vastly increases life expectancy of soldiers. You only have to compare how many US soldiers have died in actual combat (as opposed to bombings), and how many Iraqis died in the war.

 

 

An 10 million chopper is nice... but a $1000,- rocket shooting it down is nicer...  "

If you actually knew what you're talking about, you'd know that your chances of taking down a modern gunship with a $1000 RPG are next to zero. That's why it doesn't usually happen, you know.

 

 

PS. Also you can WASTE cash. JSF anyone?

Last I heard is that JSF is due for active duty on about 2010. How's that wasted cash?

 

I agree, however, that it would seem like that crazy amount of money the military's getting isn't being administered quite as it should. I read somewhere that another "threat to National Security" may trigger the reinstatement of the draft... there shouldn't be any need for that, right?

[Lucius]

True. But take the new smart rifles the US is looking at. 20,000 bucks if I remember rightly. I'm all in favour of high quality kit. But for heaven's sake! You all know I believe firmly in defence spending. But couldn't the US use a simple rifle (like the R4 or Galil, which are based on an AK) and spend a little of that money on educating the poor sods a bit? I meanthe US Army themselves are complaining that the standard of education on intake is too low.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, I was about to write that in my previous post, that even though they have high spendings, it doesn't mean the average GI is that good, they just have a lot more than anyone else, and a huge amount of expensive weaponry for them.

My view is this, more education like you say, way more research into body armour since the US seems to lack severely in this area, and a little less on high tech guns that will probably jam at the first sight of sand anyway.

If the army had better armour for their troops and longer education (I mean some of the guys down there are weekend warriors ffs), perhaps they'd not have to lower their standards on intake that much.

 

Edit: Hi Kane, will look forward to see ya again in C&C III

Edited April 26, 2006 by Lucius

[alanschu]

Money has a high correlation to quality when dealing with military.

 

Having an expansive M-16, expansive nightgoggles, expansive bulletproofvest, expansive grenades etc. etc. etc. and 2 years of training etc. doesn't mean an awfull lot if some AK-47 terrorist blows your head of.

 

An 10 million chopper is nice... but a $1000,- rocket shooting it down is nicer... "

 

EDIT:

PS. Also you can WASTE cash. JSF anyone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Ok, since apparently the quality of the US military isn't actually that good, who would be able to beat them in direct combat?

[Moose]

Ok, since apparently the quality of the US military isn't actually that good, who would be able to beat them in direct combat?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

SAS > Delta Force

 

Sure you win on numbers, but we all know who wins on quality.

[alanschu]

Wow...who would have thought that a larger military force would require more money.

 

In what ways is SAS better than Delta Force? And do they continue their dominance when compared against the Navy Seals?

 

Honest questions, as I'm not sure how you can rate the effectiveness of a special operations unit. I mean, the Navy SEALs have different teams with different capabilities within themselves.

 

If you could provide me with a link so I can look this stuff up, I'd be most grateful!

[Lucius]

I don't think any of our nations can really say which special forces is better, they work covert after all.

[mkreku]

All I know is that the US navy hired a swedish attack submarine as their opposing force for their naval training in june last year. They still haven't found it (!), and the swedish sub "sank" a huge american aircraft carrier (USS Ronald Reagan, by taking close-up pictures of it, not by firing torpedoes). They're still trying to find HMS Gotland, since they recently hired the sub and the crew for an additional year..

 

It's kind of like a joke in swedish media.

 

Edit: Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Gotland_(Gtd)

Edited April 26, 2006 by mkreku

[Moose]

Wow...who would have thought that a larger military force would require more money.

 

In what ways is SAS better than Delta Force?  And do they continue their dominance when compared against the Navy Seals?

 

Honest questions, as I'm not sure how you can rate the effectiveness of a special operations unit.  I mean, the Navy SEALs have different teams with different capabilities within themselves.

 

If you could provide me with a link so I can look this stuff up, I'd be most grateful!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not heavily into all the Tom Clancy crap, but Delta Force was modelled on the SAS, and even they themselves recognise the SAS as being superior.

 

I have no idea why you're comparing the SAS to the Navy Seals as they're an entirely different model, but if you're looking for a comparisson I suppose you could look at the SBS. Now those are some tough bastards.

 

As for a link to stuff, try google or wikipedia.

[kirottu]

All I know is that the US navy hired a swedish attack submarine as their opposing force for their naval training in june last year. They still haven't found it (!),

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That

[Tigranes]

The New Zealand Air Force consists of a single helicopter. And a rusty, 60-year old AA gun that has never been fired, if that counts.