Best militaries in the world

[thechoson]

Which country has the best, most efficiently trained soldiers in the world?

The USA is obviously number one, but after that, Israel, the UK, and South Korea come to mind.

[gobears]

I would say the UK is definitely number two after the US.  In my opinion, a lot of what makes a nation's military a world power rather than a regional or local power is that it has global reach.  Like within, I dunno, say 24 hours it can send a significant detachment of its troops from its home nation or perhaps regional bases and use them effectively to accomplish whatever task is at hand.  So I think the UK would be number two after the US.  Israel and SK of course have awesome militaries, but they don't seem to have much global reach.  Israel's navy for example, although equipped with nuclear submarines and so forth, doesn't (obviously) have much reach outside of the Mediterranean.  Of course, it has no real need to go outside its region.  But it's not one with global reach, not as quickly and as efficiently as the US and UK, although it could have perhaps a small force ready quickly, like an anti-terrorist force (e.g., with the Entebbe incident, where Benjamin Netanyahu's older brother, Jonathan, died a hero).  My two cents'.

[thechoson]

That's a good point, I would agree about Israel and SK.

Britain still have a good Navy (as they always have), and they had a very good showing in the Falklands in the 80s.

The reason I brought this up is that for every international "peacekeeping mission" the US seems to have to get involved because of their logistical power.  I was thinking countries like Israel and SK could send soldiers to various countries to help out, but nothing would get done without the logistical power of the US military.

[gobears]

When I think of the UK, I think "small but packs a strong punch."  It's funny, though, after WW I and WW II, the British military really took a huge, huge beating.  WW I was probably its height, where it was arguably the best in the world, but after that it was kinda fat and coasting, in my opinion.  Then came the two World Wars in which obviously Britain was decimated.  But since then, since Britain has had to rebuild, and most importantly to scale down its armed forces after losing its "colonies," etc., I think they've actually made themselves into a lot more of a smaller, deadlier military.  

I sort of wonder if the USA is getting too big for its britches, ya know?  Sort of like how Britain was right before WWI?  Anyhow, but yeah, I agree, right now the US is still number one as far as its military might is concerned.

Speaking of which, if the US and the UK ever got into a war with each other, though, I think that the US would eventually win, but not without having our noses considerably bruised.  

Another thing I just thought about is that, even though the stereotype is that autocratic governments tend to have the best militaries in the world (e.g., Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Nazi Germany, the Soviets, etc.), most of them eventually lost to more I guess you could say "democratic" forces.  What I mean is that I think militaries are in a way more effective overall when people volunteer for them -- "citizen-soldiers" as someone like Stephen Ambrose might've said, rather than (as has historically been the case) when armies were built from mercenaries and/or conscripted against their will.  So that, generally speaking, I think a democracy's military is more a force to be reckoned with than even an autocratic regime's.  Primarily because in a democracy the entire people are (more or less) in support of and contribute directly to the success or failure of its military, whereas in the former the military is largely in the hands of a small group of powerful elites or even a single person. 

[jgomez]

israel and UK come to mind...they're like military puppets of the US.

[eee]

That's a good point, I would agree about Israel and SK.

Britain still have a good Navy (as they always have), and they had a very good showing in the Falklands in the 80s.

The reason I brought this up is that for every international "peacekeeping mission" the US seems to have to get involved because of their logistical power.  I was thinking countries like Israel and SK could send soldiers to various countries to help out, but nothing would get done without the logistical power of the US military.

israel obviously has a great military... but it could never send it out of the country for a long period of time.  with only 6 million people, israel's economy just cant afford to have a large percentage of its population leave their jobs and get back into uniform. israel's entire military structure is really only set up for short term, defensive combat.  their air force might be able to help the US with regional targets, but any troop deployment would be not much more than a token show of support for the US.

[McBeer]

Ummm, China anyone?

Any of the nuclear capable countries are not to be taken lightly. My top 10 would probably look something like this:

1. USA
2. China
3. UK
4. South Korea
5. Israel
6. India
7. Russia
8. Pakistan
9. Germany
10. France

[eee]

heh heh... france... thats a good one!

[McBeer]

heh heh... france... thats a good one!

Gotta recognize the nukes, brah.

[Tobias Beecher]

1. USA [duh]
2. Canada
3. Mexico