amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Well, yeah...who the hell is going to want to send their troops off to die in a war that your country isn't in?
Why do many of you hate the UN so much?
- Thread starter Alexander's Horse
- Start date
Well, yeah...who the hell is going to want to send their troops off to die in a war that your country isn't in?
sgrig
Comrade
Well, I think if Israel declared war on India, then the international community would turn AGAINST Israel, because it would be an aggressor! But that's a mad scenario anyway... :crazyeyes
Well, I just took the figures off the World Bank website www.worldbank.org. Also I think that a country's economic might depends on its TOTAL GDP, because this the country's total input into the world's economy, so it does not matter whether that GDP is produced by 1 billion people or 15 million people. GDP/capita is only useful for quality of life comparisons, but quality of life does not necessarily affect how powerful a country is.
It is difficult to accurately rank countries in terms of power, unless it is really obvious, such as USA being the most powerful nowadays. There are so many factors involved, the priority of which changes depending on the world's situation, so it is really only possible to estimate a country's power, and even that can be disputed as shown in this thread. It gets especially difficult when comparing countries from different regions which are not necessarily world powers - like who is more powerful - Brazil or Indonesia?
I made another attempt but this time the few most powerful countries for each region of the world in no particular order (a bit difficult where to put Russia) :
Europe: UK, France, Germany, Russia
Middle East: Israel, Eqypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey
Asia: China, India, Pakistan, S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan
Sub-Saharan Africa: S. Africa, Nigeria (any more ideas for Africa?)
Americas: USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina
Australasia: Australia
This is clearly easier than compiling the list of most powerful countries in whole world. So maybe UN representation should be done by world region? (Just trying to stay on-topic)
Are you joking? The merkavah Mk3 is a lot stronger than the M1A2 ...
It's armor is made of indestructable special Israeli made alloy that is equall to 7 (or was it 9?) meters of steel.
And when I say NATO, I mean NATO.
Quoted from ABCNews.com:
Sure ABC is not the bible, and they might be wrong along with Janes.com, the worlds premier source for such info. But even if they are wrong, this article shows how strong the IDF is actually is.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/israel116_army.html
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/missiles/israel_aircraft/
Says here IAI developed weapons are both COST EFFECTIVE and Precise & excellent. Seems to me like what you said about crappy weapons that are expensive is BS. But they might be wrong.
It's armor is made of indestructable special Israeli made alloy that is equall to 7 (or was it 9?) meters of steel.
And when I say NATO, I mean NATO.
Quoted from ABCNews.com:
Sure ABC is not the bible, and they might be wrong along with Janes.com, the worlds premier source for such info. But even if they are wrong, this article shows how strong the IDF is actually is.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/israel116_army.html
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/missiles/israel_aircraft/
Says here IAI developed weapons are both COST EFFECTIVE and Precise & excellent. Seems to me like what you said about crappy weapons that are expensive is BS. But they might be wrong.
Flatlander Fox
Armed Cultural Consultant
The armor is depleted uranium, which is not exactly special Israeli made stuff (It's been on our tanks for 20 years
). How do you think it got on yours?
For a small force, the Israelis have alot of firepower...
But NATO can project alot of power too: Try a few DIVISIONS within a 96 hour time frame.
In the Europeans theater alone, the U.S. has three divisions...
How many divisions of regulars (Not reservists) does Israel have?
Not Armored Brigades, but DIVISIONS?
Not to mention the German, French, and British armies, which all can deploy quite quickly.
India vs. Israel wouldn't be pretty, nor feasible.
). How do you think it got on yours?For a small force, the Israelis have alot of firepower...
But NATO can project alot of power too: Try a few DIVISIONS within a 96 hour time frame.
In the Europeans theater alone, the U.S. has three divisions...
How many divisions of regulars (Not reservists) does Israel have?
Not Armored Brigades, but DIVISIONS?
Not to mention the German, French, and British armies, which all can deploy quite quickly.
India vs. Israel wouldn't be pretty, nor feasible.
Greadius
:yeah:
I can't imagine Israel-India war being very interesting... I don't think either nation has the ability to project its power (no matter how formidble they may be locally) to one another. Basically, there are a whole lotta Muslims that aren't going to let armies pass through unscathed... it would be a nightmare of a logistical project... so the other option would be naval. Both Israel and India lack any realistic semblence of a naval power. They're both regional powers, but their military power projection is very local.
I agree completely. I knew there was a reason I liked Israelis
And how those divisions will get into israel?
you forget that israels border and sea shore is so small, that our army is more than enough to protect it from whatever size of divisions that will come.
To tell you the truth, europe IS much stronger than Israel, but im talking on a hypothetical comparison situation.
Lets imagine europe declaring war on Israel, Israels naval forces with, nukes, more than a million of soldiers (men only), latest technology huge fleet of tanks and planes, the arrow missile which protects us basically hypotheticaly from all of your ballistic missiles, all of that is more than enough to sustain a few million europeans coming from all directions.
If israel is a last-resort fanatic country that will do anything to survive, it can nuke its sorroundings or even part of europe while europes nukes are *SUPPOSED* to be eliminated by the arrow missile. How much arrow missiles we have? not much. but this is a war-war hypothetical situation.
Anyhow, boycott israel versus europe, i dont think that will ever happen, lol.
"The armor is depleted uranium, which is not exactly special Israeli made stuff (It's been on our tanks for 20 years). How do you think it got on yours?"
Mistake, its israeli developed. Its not what all tanks use, its a special developed type of steel from israel.
Also, the merkavah's tank has the highest precentage of first shot hit of all tanks in the world, it has the longest range (about 5 km) of missiles, and they are self guided. they are not the regular tank missiles, they are laser guided and they come from above and hit the tank from above like helicopter missiles, leaving NO tank any chance to survive. Your tank can basically be behind a hill, with no sight by the merkavah, the merkavah will still hit it, probably on first attempt, from above. on the turret.
But i'm not really supposed to tell you all this... its secret military info I squeezed out from a relative who serves in the israeli air-force.
Now, back to the europe thing, im sure europe has quite a few soldiers, but our army is deployed much quickerly... we have a draft, britain, france or germany does not have a draft. We are the only ones with actual day-to-day war experience in modern time (unfortunately). Dont forget israel was attacked by thousands of arabs in a few days but still won the war, and that was before we reached this level of an army.
Forget anyone attacking Israel tho, the jews has too much voices in the american government and high society, and i dont believe that after the holocaust any european country will do something to israel other than criticsizing it and maybe some sanctions in the worst case.
you forget that israels border and sea shore is so small, that our army is more than enough to protect it from whatever size of divisions that will come.
To tell you the truth, europe IS much stronger than Israel, but im talking on a hypothetical comparison situation.
Lets imagine europe declaring war on Israel, Israels naval forces with, nukes, more than a million of soldiers (men only), latest technology huge fleet of tanks and planes, the arrow missile which protects us basically hypotheticaly from all of your ballistic missiles, all of that is more than enough to sustain a few million europeans coming from all directions.
If israel is a last-resort fanatic country that will do anything to survive, it can nuke its sorroundings or even part of europe while europes nukes are *SUPPOSED* to be eliminated by the arrow missile. How much arrow missiles we have? not much. but this is a war-war hypothetical situation.
Anyhow, boycott israel versus europe, i dont think that will ever happen, lol.
"The armor is depleted uranium, which is not exactly special Israeli made stuff (It's been on our tanks for 20 years). How do you think it got on yours?"
Mistake, its israeli developed. Its not what all tanks use, its a special developed type of steel from israel.
Also, the merkavah's tank has the highest precentage of first shot hit of all tanks in the world, it has the longest range (about 5 km) of missiles, and they are self guided. they are not the regular tank missiles, they are laser guided and they come from above and hit the tank from above like helicopter missiles, leaving NO tank any chance to survive. Your tank can basically be behind a hill, with no sight by the merkavah, the merkavah will still hit it, probably on first attempt, from above. on the turret.
But i'm not really supposed to tell you all this... its secret military info I squeezed out from a relative who serves in the israeli air-force.
Now, back to the europe thing, im sure europe has quite a few soldiers, but our army is deployed much quickerly... we have a draft, britain, france or germany does not have a draft. We are the only ones with actual day-to-day war experience in modern time (unfortunately). Dont forget israel was attacked by thousands of arabs in a few days but still won the war, and that was before we reached this level of an army.
Forget anyone attacking Israel tho, the jews has too much voices in the american government and high society, and i dont believe that after the holocaust any european country will do something to israel other than criticsizing it and maybe some sanctions in the worst case.
IceBlaZe, I don't really mean to put you down, but...
I know Flatlander Fox is 9 - 10 years older than you, and currently serving in the U.S. Army. I'm almost 30 years older than you, served 20+ years in the U.S. military, and am still working at the U.S. Strategic Command.
The point is, do I trust the people who have been working with this stuff for years, or some 16-yr-old kid who "squeezed out" supposedly secret military info from a relative? I think the choice should be obvious. Those of us in the know do not brag about the classified info we have. We usually just smile, and nod our heads, and let the ignorant remain that way. It's called national security, and its's our job.
That being said, I do think that if any coountry were foolish enough to attack Israel, they would find it a very costly, very tough nut to crack. Much of what you say is undeniably true. I often wondered why your neighbors hadn't figured this out even before the Six-Day War.
Back on the topic for this thread:
I know Flatlander Fox is 9 - 10 years older than you, and currently serving in the U.S. Army. I'm almost 30 years older than you, served 20+ years in the U.S. military, and am still working at the U.S. Strategic Command.
The point is, do I trust the people who have been working with this stuff for years, or some 16-yr-old kid who "squeezed out" supposedly secret military info from a relative? I think the choice should be obvious. Those of us in the know do not brag about the classified info we have. We usually just smile, and nod our heads, and let the ignorant remain that way. It's called national security, and its's our job.
That being said, I do think that if any coountry were foolish enough to attack Israel, they would find it a very costly, very tough nut to crack. Much of what you say is undeniably true. I often wondered why your neighbors hadn't figured this out even before the Six-Day War.
Back on the topic for this thread:
I agree with you completely on this one.
knowltok2
Deity
Just twisting your tail a little.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Um, four.
Anti-tank mine (mobility kill).
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
But I should add that all of this "Israel can beat you all" mentality - which is based on questionable ideas to begin with - is exactly the sort of attitude that led to the grinding hell of the intifada in the first place. Security is more than just how pretty your (ehem, second-grade) Merkava tanks look, or how much of a fraction of a percentage more reliable your wonderful assault rifles are.
Let's say, for the sake of argument that NATO decided to invade Israel from the Jordanian side. Just for starters, consider the fact that almost all of Israel's entire productive economy is within the range of heavy NATO artillery from the border. How will you be able to maintain fuel stocks - or better yet, distribute the fuel - when the roof, parking lot, driveway and approach to every major depot can be shelled from air, sea AND land? All that has been missing is people competent enough to shoot and scoot.
Israel is inherently vulnerable. That's why that wonderful army was created in the first place. It's also why the Palestinians decided to try rocks and AKs instead of Arab tanks and MIGs - because it's a much better way to exploit those vulnerabilities in lieu of any M1A1s parked on the boulevard.
R.III
Let's say, for the sake of argument that NATO decided to invade Israel from the Jordanian side. Just for starters, consider the fact that almost all of Israel's entire productive economy is within the range of heavy NATO artillery from the border. How will you be able to maintain fuel stocks - or better yet, distribute the fuel - when the roof, parking lot, driveway and approach to every major depot can be shelled from air, sea AND land? All that has been missing is people competent enough to shoot and scoot.
Israel is inherently vulnerable. That's why that wonderful army was created in the first place. It's also why the Palestinians decided to try rocks and AKs instead of Arab tanks and MIGs - because it's a much better way to exploit those vulnerabilities in lieu of any M1A1s parked on the boulevard.
R.III
G-Man
A One Man's War
Israel can move a lot of divisions within a 96 minutes frame time. We all saw how quickly your forces really move... It took you two month to attack Afghanistan, and if you're now going to attack Iraq you're doing it about as slowly as possible.
The US will never get european help in a serious war. NATO is a coalition of countries with equpment, strategies and ideals of the communist age.
The Merkava is the perfect tank for today's battlefield. As we seen in the last ten years, all major conflicts western countries were onvolved in where basically a very strong army vs. a group of militias. The M1A2 has a lot of fire power but not so much protection to the crew and accuracy. If used in a conflict like the Israeli Palestinian it would be the perfect weapon for killing a lot of civilians while missing the terrorists.
The Merkava III (and even more strongly, the Merkava IV) has a better armor and the best accuracy any tank ever had. It can shoot at a moving car anywhere within it's shooting radius (even if it would have to aim 45 degrees up in order to do so) and hit it directly, even if it's speeding or slowing. It's engine is in the front providing greater safety fir the crew. In today's war the most important thing is too have as little casualties as possible and the Merkava does just that. I find it very hard to believe the US is under a threat of enemy tank masses but that's excatly what the M1A2 is best at. The fact is that if it wasn't for thier national pride the US goverment would've had any reason possible to prefer the Merkava over the M1A2. Although if they'll meet face to face the M1A2 is more likely to win, in the real world they don't do that and a tank should be prepared to do the missions he'll get, not the mission he could've had if the USSR would've invaded europe.
The europeans aren't a single nation just like NATO isn't. Only an idiot will relay on the help of friends that do their best to get away from you, like the europeans do to the US.
About that Israel-India war - What the hell are you guys talking about? Israel and India have never been closer:
The only true democracies between europe and Japan, both of them suffer from Islamic extrimists terrorism, both have the common goal of fighting terrorism, both are US allies that do their best to be a part of the western world despite their geographical situation, etc.
Richard III
NATO will loose if they'll try to fight Israel because NATO's weak point is the public. People can understand when a few soldiers are killed in order to do something necessary and there's no real threat for them. Israel will kill hundreds of thousands of troops before loosing and even then we have our nukes. The european/American public is simply too moraly weak to support anything that might endanger them.
I do respect all of you in the US military, but my dad is a major in the Israeli Air-Force.. and I respect his info also.
I don't think a US soldier will have more info on Israeli AFV's than an Israeli soldier.
In anyway, The Merkavah tank is not second grade (It was started production in 1979 and now its on its 4th Make).
And I never said Israel can beat you all, I did say Europe is stronger, but on these tough times of my country, and all that my army has been through in the past 54 years, I do like to take pride of my army.
Each time Israel has been at risk, with its small size, the army has found some creative way to protect it. Thats what we are good at, creativeness. Thats why are weapons are so good, thats why we have so many start-ups over here and thats why our army managed to win somehow in every total-lost situation.
The palestiniens decided to try out rocks and AK's because:
1. They dont have access to tanks and heavy weaponries, and we all know they tried (Karine A rings a bell?)
2. Looks better to the media, evil Israelies with guns against poor palestiniens with rocks and molotov coctails.
3. Its smybolic, the true fights are taken with shahids by bombing theirselves in restaraunts and shooting and blowing up citizens. The rock thing is just symbolic, to the media, and to the nation.
Anyhow, the info I said about the Merkava is not 'Super Super Secret' kind of info.. Its just info about the tanks that it supposed to be secret, like all other military info, but hangs around in the army, passing from soldier to soldier.
I do not know the details of this because:
1. The info is yet to be released
2. I'm not an expert of guidance systems
But I do know that it passes hills, because it does not fly straight forward like regular tank armour, it sets on target by radar or something and gets manipulated by the computer on it or something, just like regular heat-guided or laser-guided or radio-guided or whatever there is missiles.
What the intifada has to do with Israel taking pride of its army?
1948, the palestiniens open war. 1967, the jordanians open war. Israel conquers the territories it was attacked by, jordan passes the west bank and gives it to Israel and egypt does the same with gazaa strip. All to be discussed by Israel and the palestiniens in negotiations. I dont see what I said has anything to do with the beggining of the intifada.
Now, I'm not some kid who brags with fancy twisted details about weapons, dont forget I live in a country that drafts every 18 year old. All my family was drafted, my sister is now in the military, so is my cousin. my dad was and still serves every 2 weeks, my brother was in the military and I will be in the military 2 years from now. I know things about the Israeli military, im sorrounded daily by much more soldiers than most people are. The military is a figure of destiny here in this country, it intervenes everyones lives.
And yes, security is not only fancy tanks and pretty assault rifles
Security is also good intelligence service, creativity, experience.
But that doesn't say that if you have them all you are secured. The only way for complete security is peace.
I don't know though if Israel will ever be secured tho. Maybe when the jews are thrown to the sea. Jewish colonization in the british mandate of palestine (formerly under control of the ottoman empire) began way before 1948.
The only way for jews to be ever secured is to be left alone in a distant planet I guess. We were never accepted wherever we were and we will never will be I guess. Europe, Persia, middle east, it doesnt matter.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
On one level, this whole conversation is ridiculous: however pissed I might sometimes be at Israeli policy, I don't think the great NATO-Israeli War of 2003 is likely anytime soon. But if it were, for whatever reason, I'm far more prepared to buy THAT argument you've got up there, G-man, as an explanation for Israeli strength than the ones IceBlze was offering.
G-Man
A One Man's War
Israel's army isn't really built for massive fights. If you'll look at what the IDF is investing in you'll see it's more in anti terrorism measures then anti tank. The Merkava was built after the yom kipur war, when Israel was in about the worst situation it could've been and won the war, but at a high cost in human lives. From then on the aim wasn't to get a military victory, something we can achieve anyway, but on how to win with minimum casualties.
knowltok2
Deity
Richard III might have accepted this, but I will not. First, it sounds a lot like what Hitler and Tojo said a few years back. Second, you are assuming that your enemies will fight the war you want them to fight. Why? The only way Israel could kill hundreds of thousands of European or American troops is if they were committed to battle while th IDF was still an effective fighting force. Why would they do this? As I said earlier, an air war will determine the victor. With control of the Air Israel couldn't be invaded by Europe or the US, and without control, the US and Europe wouldn't need to invade in a classic D-Day or Barbarossa engagement.
Of course ths hypothetical conflict is ludicrous, but that asside, before detailing your defense, it would be best to consider what the other side's objectives are. It would not be pushing anyone into the sea, or conquest. Most likely the goal would only be to defeat Israel in battle, not conquer it. Conquering is something that happens to nations w/o nukes. Given that destruction of the IDF is the only goal in such a scenario, divisions meeting each other in fairly even combat is not very likely. This is not the American doctrine of warfare, and I suspect that the Europeans have learned a bit of this as well.
Please note that I am not saying that Israel would be defeated, but that it would not happen in a way that resulted in massive casualties for European or US forces in any event. One side would win the air war, and that side would win the rest of the war. This of course leaves nukes out of the picture, which I think would be best for everyone.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Sorry, somehow my last post ended up making it on without my seeing IceBlaZe's earlier reply.
I'm not BLAMING the intifada on the Israeli army. And I think Israelis shouldn't be proud of that army. I am saying that after 1967, it's my view that Israel became SO proud of its army that over time, the pride became a substitute for foresighted political policy. The intifada - armed with rocks, stones, ak's or howitzers, for all I care - is designed to destabilize Israeli security by attacking it in ways that its conventional army can never truly destroy without something approaching ethnic cleansing. Israel was so focused on the threat of Syrian tanks or hijacked aircract that it lost track of the threat that was showing up to work from the Territories every morning.
And that one sentence of yours eloquently brings us to the whole point of this thread. I don't live under threat of rockets every day; I live in Canada. Our archenemy is a country you go shopping in. I had a great time last year writing a speech for my boss at an American state legislator's conference at the Windsor-Detroit Xing, where I had him list off all of the times that US and Anglo-Canadian forces had crossed that particular stretch of border to burn each other's settlements. Everyone laughed. Ha ha! Funny stuff! That's all a joke now because both countries stopped caring about who provoked who first, and started solving the problems at a table, one at a time. Nobody had to have a General Assembly vote to tell us what was right or wrong, and if they had, it would probably have made things worse.
And it might not come across, but I've got a lot of respect for you guys, taking the s### you do on this forum and from the rest of the world about every last bullet that gets shot from the muzzle of a Galil.
But the day I get razzed for skipping the letter "a" in a typo on a forum with appalling typers by the dozen is the day I say
:tank:
"Fire up that tank simulator!
Load, sabot!
Shoot that Merkava in the ASS!"
Even if the shell would bounce off of that indestructible armor
I'm not BLAMING the intifada on the Israeli army. And I think Israelis shouldn't be proud of that army. I am saying that after 1967, it's my view that Israel became SO proud of its army that over time, the pride became a substitute for foresighted political policy. The intifada - armed with rocks, stones, ak's or howitzers, for all I care - is designed to destabilize Israeli security by attacking it in ways that its conventional army can never truly destroy without something approaching ethnic cleansing. Israel was so focused on the threat of Syrian tanks or hijacked aircract that it lost track of the threat that was showing up to work from the Territories every morning.
And that one sentence of yours eloquently brings us to the whole point of this thread. I don't live under threat of rockets every day; I live in Canada. Our archenemy is a country you go shopping in. I had a great time last year writing a speech for my boss at an American state legislator's conference at the Windsor-Detroit Xing, where I had him list off all of the times that US and Anglo-Canadian forces had crossed that particular stretch of border to burn each other's settlements. Everyone laughed. Ha ha! Funny stuff! That's all a joke now because both countries stopped caring about who provoked who first, and started solving the problems at a table, one at a time. Nobody had to have a General Assembly vote to tell us what was right or wrong, and if they had, it would probably have made things worse.
And it might not come across, but I've got a lot of respect for you guys, taking the s### you do on this forum and from the rest of the world about every last bullet that gets shot from the muzzle of a Galil.
But the day I get razzed for skipping the letter "a" in a typo on a forum with appalling typers by the dozen is the day I say
:tank:
"Fire up that tank simulator!
Load, sabot!
Shoot that Merkava in the ASS!"
Even if the shell would bounce off of that indestructible armor
Flatlander Fox
Armed Cultural Consultant
Originally posted by Padma
The point is, do I trust the people who have been working with this stuff for years, or some 16-yr-old kid who "squeezed out" supposedly secret military info from a relative? I think the choice should be obvious. Those of us in the know do not brag about the classified info we have. We usually just smile, and nod our heads, and let the ignorant remain that way. It's called national security, and its's our job.
Very true. But unfortunately these days, a 16 year old sometimes has access to as much information as the normal footsoldier.
SAC huh? I used to live in Bellevue, and watch the planes take off. (Guess I joined the wrong service for that plane stuff though
) I've been to the museum a bunch of times (But not for 10 years at least)
.The IDF is the best at what they do. You'll get no argument from me on that.
And it is a good thing to be proud of your country.
The U.N. is a balancing act... So they can't JUST have Democracies, that wouldn't be fair.
G-Man
A One Man's War
Let's just leave all these hipothetycal battles and get back to reality. NATO isn't gonna attack Israel, Israel isn't gonna invade India and the only place the Merkava and the M1A2 can ever meet in is Bagdhad.
Now about democracies - how will you define democracy? I've heard people on this forum saying Israel is a foundmentalist dicatatorship and Iran is a real democracy.
Now about democracies - how will you define democracy? I've heard people on this forum saying Israel is a foundmentalist dicatatorship and Iran is a real democracy.
