Most powerful military in history?

[Azash]

If we go by the premise that non-strategic is the same as tactical.. You could argue that very small nukes with low "degrading" (word help here) times and small blast radi could be considered tactical, in that they would be used to eliminate sole troops and heavily fortified bunkers, while strategic warheads have a more profound effect with even greater contaminational consequences, thus being more of an all-encompassing choice and moving from tactical weapon to beyond-the-battlefield, strategic arms.

*wheeze*

 

[NeoHitler]

The USA could easily turn easily turn another country into a sea/lake.

 

[West 36]

I'd say either Russia, Rome, Great Britain, Germany, China, Mongolia or France for sure.

How about Alexander the Great, I know he's been mentioned but still. Counquered the world. Awesome guy right there.

Lets Analyze:
Rome---- think under Trajan---- HUGE empire, from Britain to the Persian Gulf. They didnt do that w/o skill.
Russia. Biggest country as we speak, and it was bigger not too long ago. and they had nukes and put the rest of the world on edge.
Great Britan- it earned "GREAT". Now these guys had an awesome navy to go along with their army. Had settlements everywhere and in between the rest (I made this phrase up, nice no?).
Germany- Counqured most of Europe one time, and almost did it they're first try. And this only a few decades after actually being united.
China- God, i detest their gov't now, but they've lasted since forever and have been a pretty consistent power, of course they've faltered but overall, they've done a helluva job.
Mongolia- umm... nowadays, I'd say I'm sure most U.S. school children wouldn't be able to point this place out, wedged between, not long ago anyway, 2 immense powers. Now just 1 (guess who). But wow did they once own. They absolutely knew no bounds, counquering everything in their path. They had been nothing, as they are now, but rose up to be a threat to a few of the other powers listed. Are the Huns considered mongolian as well?
France- same as Britain, but they had it rougher actually being on the Continent. Pulled a Hitler and counquered most of Europe. Colonies everywhere and in between the rest (woo! again!). Anyone who actually considers the French a joke is living some sick lie, check your history.



and America, sure its doing well now, but I must say its a bit of luck that the modern world is like this, war isn't what it once was with nations conquering all around, and so its a bit easier, I suppose, haven't had a direct war as we like to think of them since WWII, I'd say. Did damn well there though. Recently though having troubles.

 

[Disgustipated]

USA in 1945. Obviously not USA today. Our army is quite small compared to what it was in 1945. Although if you include nukes, well that's enough firepower to level everything. The Romans and Mongols couldn't even come close. Granted, we can't get a first strike at one country in particular. But every other country we can annhilate. We could take 95% (just guessing at Russia's land area) of the land area using nukes. The land might not be that useful being irradiated and all, but we can do it.

 

[Steph]

USA in 1945. Obviously not USA today. Our army is quite small compared to what it was in 1945. Although if you include nukes, well that's enough firepower to level everything. The Romans and Mongols couldn't even come close. Granted, we can't get a first strike at one country in particular. But every other country we can annhilate. We could take 95% (just guessing at Russia's land area) of the land area using nukes. The land might not be that useful being irradiated and all, but we can do it.

A 20 MT bomb will dmage building in a radius of up to 50 km, that's 7800 km².
For 1 MT, the damage radius is 17 km, so a bit less than 1000 km². And destruction of building (not simply damage) is "only" 10 km, so 315 km²

The US have 6,000 nukes, let's assume they are all 20 MT (which is a very wrong assumption, as most of the US nukes have much lower yields, as I think 500 kT is closer to the "norm")
That's 46,800,000 km² at most (7800 x 6000), or 6,000,000 km² with 1 MT warheads for damage, and 1,890,000 km² of destruction.
Russia is 17,075,400 km².

So you could damage the whole of Russia with only 20 MT warheads.

With 1 MT warheads, you can damage only 30% of it, it's "only" 10% of Russia which is destroyed.

 

[Warman17]

A 20 MT bomb will dmage building in a radius of up to 50 km, that's 7800 km².
For 1 MT, the damage radius is 17 km, so a bit less than 1000 km². And destruction of building (not simply damage) is "only" 10 km, so 315 km²

The US have 6,000 nukes, let's assume they are all 20 MT (which is a very wrong assumption, as most of the US nukes have much lower yields, as I think 500 kT is closer to the "norm")
That's 46,800,000 km² at most (7800 x 6000), or 6,000,000 km² with 1 MT warheads for damage, and 1,890,000 km² of destruction.
Russia is 17,075,400 km².

So you could damage the whole of Russia with only 20 MT warheads.

With 1 MT warheads, you can damage only 30% of it, it's "only" 10% of Russia which is destroyed.

Radiation, lol.

 

[Steph]

20 MT bomb:
- blast damage: up to 47 km
- thermal radiation : up 53 km (for first degree burn)
- nuclear radiation : 5 km, that's 10 time less than the thermal radiation/blast damage I used earlier, so a 100 times smaller surface.

Try again

 

[Disgustipated]

I was excepting Russia because we don't have the ability to get a first strike in on them. I do believe we might be able to do it on China (but I admit, i'm not up on their state of military readiness). But with some ballistic subs we might be able to knock out China's nuke sites before they have a chance to react. Assuming we know where they all are. Same with England, France, etc (they won't be expecting it anyways). Russia would not be a good country to try to nuke.

Obviously we don't have enough nukes to completely nuke 100% of the land area. That's not my point. We have enough warheads to hit nearly every city on the planet once. After that, we can move in with conventional military. The main problem here, is we wouldn't have enough troops to occupy. We'd have to institute a draft.

 

[West 36]

Plus the planet would be uninhabitable? if not gone!

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I was excepting Russia because we don't have the ability to get a first strike in on them. I do believe we might be able to do it on China (but I admit, i'm not up on their state of military readiness). But with some ballistic subs we might be able to knock out China's nuke sites before they have a chance to react. Assuming we know where they all are. Same with England, France, etc (they won't be expecting it anyways). Russia would not be a good country to try to nuke.

Obviously we don't have enough nukes to completely nuke 100% of the land area. That's not my point. We have enough warheads to hit nearly every city on the planet once. After that, we can move in with conventional military. The main problem here, is we wouldn't have enough troops to occupy. We'd have to institute a draft.

I don't think your troops will be free to do any such thing then, drafted or otherwise. They will be too busy, managing the domestic chaos arising from global climatic changes and the radioactive fallout being blown back to the States.

Radioactive fallout can move, you know.

 

[RomanCowboy]

i would have to say china. simply because the PLA (people's liberation army) is the largest and could probably whoop ass if there's a land/sea invasion.
plus i doubt anyone would use nukes (unless under very strong non enviromental dictatorship). no one would use nukes because they'd lose the people because everyone's all like save the enviroment. stop nukes, don't smoke, etc....
so ya......
WW2 didn't kill them it made them stronger restoring goverment that's ready for war.

 

[Tekee]

No No one will attack any Nuclear Power, no one will go after Russia or America or China but they will go for other countries, even a single powerful bomb could distrupt the whole earth and cause famine and blah blah blah very bad things,
So it dosen't matter if a country feels it should not use nukes you will not risk it and attack a country that has to potential to

 

[Tekee]

DId you think that everyone posting here would be non-american? you should've made a poll without America, any country that has existed for less then the test of time shouldn'e deserve to be most powerful country in history

 

[Verbose]

I was excepting Russia because we don't have the ability to get a first strike in on them. I do believe we might be able to do it on China (but I admit, i'm not up on their state of military readiness). But with some ballistic subs we might be able to knock out China's nuke sites before they have a chance to react. Assuming we know where they all are. Same with England, France, etc (they won't be expecting it anyways). Russia would not be a good country to try to nuke.

The Brits and the French have theirs on subs precisely to make sure their capability of retaliation can't be knocked out like that. (Though expecting it from the Soviets originally.) You can kiss most major US urban centres goodbye. China is getting there.