Which Country Has The Most Efficient Military Force?
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
I guess you would have to explain that to the 100,000 or so dead Iraquis the US killed when conquering Iraq. Or the several million Japanese killed by the US in 'World War II. I could go on. I still have several hundred historical examples left. Twenty million dollar aircraft don't kill just one person. They usually kill dozens, and the US superiority in technology is one of the main reasons why the US casualty rate is so low and that of the Taliban is so high. The point is superior weaponry makes for a superior military. The only reason anyone resorts to using crude homemake weapons is because they don't have anything else. Given a choice the Taliban would arm themselves in an identical manner to the Americans.
What is cheaper ... the jet, armaments, training and support or the java stones and grenade? Neither are selective. You can do the math. Nuclear may make it effective - but overkill is waste. One bullet, one kill is efficient - but you need boots on ground for that.
Last edited:
Ohhh, I knew what you meant, if anyone here was going to get it, it would be you, Iron, Lone, DS. I was just being silly, and I guess I dropped the ball, cuz I don't know how to type a sheepish "what", lol. Maybe I should have typed it Whaaat".Its the "impersonal" thing.....yep, 2430 metres definitely qualifies..........
At any rate the gist is there somewhere, lol.
I put my vote in for Canada since it took a Canadian to Command a USN ship's company which I was awarded the Highest Order of the United States Legion of Merit award.
The Legion of Merit is a military decoration of the United States armed forces that is awarded for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. The decoration is issued both to United States military personnel and to military and political figures of foreign governments. The Legion of Merit is one of only two United States military decorations to be issued as a neck order (the other being the Medal of Honor). courtesy: Wikipedia
That fusche medal that just about every officer wears? It is not even close to a Medal of Honor or Navy Cross. It is basically an officer good conduct medal or a medal the US can give to other foreigners to say... thanks and good work.
PS. No combat needed.
Oh my gosh. As a Marine and visiting many a Navy town the bars are FILLED with Navy Seals. HUNDREDS of them. Each one.
"You Marines think you're so bad. I'm a Navy SEAL."
"You are? So you must know those guys...they're all SEALS too."
"Holy ^%$# Marines. This whole bar is FILLED with Navy SEALS!"
There was a guy at work claiming to be a NAVY SEAL until I had about enough hearing about it. I confronted the very overweight former sailor.
"Rumor has it you are telling folks you were a Navy SEAL. Were you really a Navy SEAL?"
"Well no. But I did get washed out of SEAL training."
"Ok...got you."
It honestly depends and changes, before ww1 id say it was the japanese, had the most effective navy. They were out gunned by the russians, but the japs out classed them.
The british look at the land army before they got walloped by the boers, before that their army wasnt anythign special, after the boers walloped them they got their **** straight and were a force in ww1....
Right now id say America/british are the most effective.
The british look at the land army before they got walloped by the boers, before that their army wasnt anythign special, after the boers walloped them they got their **** straight and were a force in ww1....
Right now id say America/british are the most effective.
lol Our long-range jobbies qualify for that, too, I would think. So? Want to get personal, we have a Win 94 carbine in 30-30 that probably doesn't shoot as well as my Baby Eagle at 100 meters. lmao Better yet, try a .25 popgun.Its the "impersonal" thing
I see S-A doesn't like people hotlinking pics of their guns. No sense of haha.
Yeah, they're hi-tech gear sure made a difference in Viet Nam, didn't it? It's pretty obvious that hi-tech has a big problem with guerilla tactics. The Talibans problem I think is that they are too busy religiously propagandizing their people to teach them proper guerilla tactics.
Besides, how many spent rounds or rockets from a jet kill how many people? A high ratio of rounds per kill is not efficient however effective it may be. A sniper has a better kill ratio. In Viet Nam, I read that a farmer could take his antique Russian bolt action and bring down a ThunderThud with one shot.
Last edited:
Sweden, with its long history of neutrality, has always realized that this neutrality comes at the cost of a strong defence. It has used its independence to develop a strong, integrated hi-tech industrial armaments industry as a economic foundation. Something that Canada, with its sloppy reliance on allies to protect its sovereignty.. and supply its military technology.. has lost almost completely.
Last edited:
Also a commendable military. However, they spend a wad on it:
Restructuring Sweden?s Military Defence (2009:11) - www.statskontoret.se
What I was referring to is that I like to use the old Garand for target shooting since I got out, never could part with it. Cost me $85.00 to purchase it years ago. (1963-64 or so when we were issued M14s, as usual the army had them years before us.) We were issued the Winchester M70 for sniper work in Vietnam. I agree, the Barrett does make it a little impersonal, glad I never had to carry one.
I have to ask you AnnaG, Why Switzerland? I wouldn't try and put the Canadian military is the same class with a country like Switzerland who hasen't fought a war in hundreds of years. They remained neutral and kept their independence during WW-II only because it was convent, profitable and Germany and bankers needed a go between.
I suspect we have a misunderstanding over use of the word "efficient." To you it seems to be the production of cheap weapons. I use the word in its historical context which means the ability to kill more of the enemy than the enemy the enemy kills and to win wars. The modern US military has as its main goals minimizing its own casualties while inflicting maximum casualties on its enemies. To that end it has largely succeeded.
Would just like to point out that I agree, "efficient" in the question should be replaced with "resourced" since it is the country with the most resources will win more battles and wars when it comes down to it.
What I mean is that no matter how your military might seem to you, they still need the proper "tools" and enough resources to get the job done no matter how much staff are included in your military labour force.
That means you may be the best carpenter in the world, but what good are you without a proper hammer, and some good nails, unbent and non-rusted?
No ... I use the team efficient to mean minimal "collateral damage". I have the impression you feel it means kill 'em - no matter who they are. That's called overkill ... sometimes even genocide.
If that is what you mean by efficient then it is the US hands down. However, I think you are misinterpreting Liberalman's thread. Here is what he said in his original post: In your view which country has the better military where missions are accomplished in the shortest amount of time with minimum casualties and deaths.
There seems little doubt to me that he was talking about eliminating the enemy not minimizing civilian casualties.
What is the point in debating semantics. "Efficient" was not defined in the opening post so, at best, we are speaking from our own understanding of the word. Go ahead. Kill 'em all but six. You'll need pall bearers.
Perhaps the original poster could elaborate. But the topic appears pretty obvious to me.