who controls earth?????

[Zodiac]

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 that ended the Cold War, the post-Cold War world is widely considered as a unipolar world, with the United States as the world's sole remaining superpower. In the words of Samuel P. Huntington, "The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power — economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural — with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world."

Some experts argue that this mainstream assessment of current global politics is too simplified, in part because of the difficulty in classifying the European Union at its current stage of development. Others argue that the notion of a superpower is outdated, considering complex global economic interdependencies, and propose that the world is multipolar. According to Samuel P. Huntington, "There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar. A unipolar system would have one superpower, no significant major powers, and many minor powers." Huntingdon thinks, "Contemporary international politics" ... "is instead a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers."

The United States is the only current Superpower. Although China and the EU are on their way to becoming superpowers, they aren't their yet. And that's the EU as a whole. The UK by itself is definitely not a superpower. The US can wipe out anyone they wanted to. The fact that we don't, speaks volumes about us.

[Zodiac]

BTW although most of the pictures of Bush in this topic are real, that one is photoshopped.

[Mathlord]

I agree Zodiac although I'm not ready to give up on Russia as a super power just yet. They are playing, in my opinion, some interesting cards with different countries around the world. Plus the 7000 nukes never hurt.

[Informer]

BTW although most of the pictures of Bush in this topic are real, that one is photoshopped.

it probably is but the point is it is believe able - that is the reputation bush has.

[Wolf359]

lol nice!

that last one was the other one I mentioned earlier - but couldn't find it!

The US has 7 Aircraft Carriers, about as many as the rest of the world combined.

The US has the Abrams tank. Although not as tough of armor as the top British tank, it is in far greater numbers and so can handle a major war better.

The US has the F-22 stealth jet fighter. Added to it's stable of other jet airplanes, it's air force is unrivaled.

Please note I said when considering a combination of size, strength and tech. You might be better at one of these three in a particular area, but the US is stronger overall.

This is not to dock the British armed forces. You have excellent soldiers that can rival the best the world has to offer, though I doubt your guys are that much better than US Delta Forces, but that could be national pride on both of our parts.

Again, I'd much rather have the British on my side than to be fighting them. Although you did get the language wrong Don't you know American is proper English?

Well there are at least 10 countries in the world with aircraft carriers and of those the UK has 3 (albeit one mothballed and is building 2 more super carriers )- so that blows the 'as many as the rest of the world statement'.

The Abrams - yeah you're right British tanks are better and although you may have more, when will the US learn that more isn't always better.

The F22 - I believe it was the UK that developed the technology to be able to detect US Stealth planes - a few years back.

I don't knock the US Forces either - It just annoys me when the odd ill-informed American comes on here banging on about how they're better than everyone else.

[Informer]

yep you are definately right wolf

quality not quantity

anyone would understand that simple message by watch SG1

small planet earth - against the big bad go'uld.

[Mathlord]

Okay, what would you take, 1000 British tanks or 10000 American tanks?

When will you Brits learn the lessens of the Russians and the Germans? And don't get me started on your less advanced tanks...

The F-22 is not only a stealth jet, but it has more manueverability than any person can handle. So it is pretty impossible unless someone develops inertial dampeners of handling better.

And note I said "about". Good research though. Still though, 7 vs 2. I would pick 7. Every other country to my knowledge only has one carrier. So if you say Brits have 2 functioning, the rest of the world has 11. 7/18 is still quite a percentage.

[Vendetta]

Im struggling to see the connection with upside down and south...as soon as we cross the equator we spin 180 degrees? Must give it a bash sometime, could be quite amusing!

TA and EPA...hmm...I pick Warlords of Briton. The British are obviously the choice! Who else has the smarts and drinks as much tea?

Na, british are has beens.

Or for those with a historical mindset....... the sun has set on the british empire

The kind of has-beens that the US doesn't dare do anything of import without?

lol - we had a US ship at one of our naval bases recently and we got talking to some of the guys in pub in town. Do you know that when the US Navy are anywhere near the Royal Navy that all the US guys get given a card on it that says:

"Do not try to out-drink, out-gamble or out-fight anyone in the Royal Navy....

.... YOU WILL LOSE!"

As I've always said - the US might have the biggest armed forces, but the UK still has the best!

Considering EPA was originally derived from TA........

I don't think so somehow!

Very nice Wolf

And LMAO @ EPA coming from TA hahahahaha

I like the way my memory works the bestest

[Wolf359]

Okay, what would you take, 1000 British tanks or 10000 American tanks?

When will you Brits learn the lessens of the Russians and the Germans? And don't get me started on your less advanced tanks...

The F-22 is not only a stealth jet, but it has more manueverability than any person can handle. So it is pretty impossible unless someone develops inertial dampeners of handling better.

And note I said "about". Good research though. Still though, 7 vs 2. I would pick 7. Every other country to my knowledge only has one carrier. So if you say Brits have 2 functioning, the rest of the world has 11. 7/18 is still quite a percentage.

Like I said though - numbers isn't everything - and American failures in the relatively recent past have proved that.

And at least us Brits actually hit the enemy and not our allies!

[Mathlord]

Ookay that last comment was out of line in many ways. I've been very polite here because I respect the British military. Comments like what you said lead me to believe that respect isn't mutual.

And please, if we wanted to win in recent wars, we could have in one day. The US has the power to flatten a country. We try to do something called liberating a country, not turning it into a parking lot. So don't you dare downgrade the might of our army.

Now if you keep these comparisons up, I may just have to start a campaign for a British American war to see what would really happen. Would be a step up from my Invade Canada protest marches

[Come_Forth]

Chill people, both the United States and the United Kingdom have impressive militaries. My father was an officer in both the Royal Navy, and the US Navy and both are top notch. Overall I think that the that the United Kingdom has better training, but the US of course has numbers. A little off-topic, but Iraq needs a politcal not a military solution.

[n00b]

Damn and I thought you were going to start praising the Chilean special forces when you said "chill." I'm tired of hearing of the US and the UK and any two-letter accronym that starts with a "U." Sorry, Uzbekistan.

~I+AM+A+N00B~

[Wolf359]

Ookay that last comment was out of line in many ways. I've been very polite here because I respect the British military. Comments like what you said lead me to believe that respect isn't mutual.

And please, if we wanted to win in recent wars, we could have in one day. The US has the power to flatten a country. We try to do something called liberating a country, not turning it into a parking lot. So don't you dare downgrade the might of our army.

Now if you keep these comparisons up, I may just have to start a campaign for a British American war to see what would really happen. Would be a step up from my Invade Canada protest marches

That's just pathetic.

The US wouldn't have dared do half of what it has done in recent years if it wasn't for UK backing - and the fact that there is so much UK sniping - no, that's not right - non-US sniping in here from some ignorant individuals - most likely the same individuals who use the old cry 'You can't do this to me, I'm an American' - just goes to show that you know it and don't like it.

You know it was a pretty lighthearted argument involving around 4 of us (including Tok'ra - who had conducted himself excellently) until some people joined and started giving it 'we're better than you' attitude - so grow up.

And nobody has tried to downgrade the US military - I've worked alongside them and fought alongside them - and I have the greatest respect for them - and other than Tok'ra and one other in this debate I don't see anyone else that has! The fact is it is individuals such as you wading in with the 'we're better than you' attitude that has turned this into a less than lighthearted argument - and when you come out with ill informed boasts about how better your nations training and equipment are and then somebody says something which actually disproves or contradicts it (such as my comment in the previous thread - harsh I know, but was made to make a point - you don't like it and start crying 'foul'!

Your statement itself proves the ignorance and the all high and mighty attitude of an unfortunate minority of US citizens who think they are the be all and end all - well the truth is that you are in fact the ones who make the rest of the world shake their head in the direction of the US in dismay. A shame really because 99.9% of all US citizens I have met are bloody decent people!

if WE wanted to win in recent wars, WE could have in one day

- that statement alone just says it all!

But since you made the boast, come on then, give us some examples - and let's state with, ooh, I don't know - the short war between 1959 and 1975!

And as for this:

Now if you keep these comparisons up, I may just have to start a campaign for a British American war to see what would really happen. Would be a step up from my Invade Canada protest marches

Well that doesn't say much for your state of mind - you're saying that if we keep up a discussion about comparisons of different nations forces, you'll start campaigning for the US to go to war with the UK?

And if you truly do go on Invade Canada marches then I'm sorry to say that you must be a militant fanatic whose branches don't go all the way up to the top of the tree - and if that is the case, you're comments aren't with the monitor pixels they're displayed with.

[vinny d]

The British Military is one of the worlds best. The United States Military is one of the worlds best.

The US spends 553,000,000,000 per year
The UK spends 68,136,000,000

US
Military age 17-45 years old [1]
Available for
military service 67,742,879 males, age 18-49 (2005 est.),
67,070,144 females, age 18-49 (2005 est.)
Fit for
military service 54,609,050 males, age 18-49 (2005 est.),
54,696,706 females, age 18-49 (2005 est.)
Reaching military
age annually 2,143,873 males (2005 est.),
2,036,201 females (2005 est.)
Active personnel 1,426,713 (ranked 2nd)
Reserve personnel 858,500


Uk
Available for
military service 14,607,724 males, age 15–49,
14,028,738 females, age 15–49
Fit for
military service 12,046,268 males, age 15–49,
11,555,893 females, age 15–49
Reaching military
age annually N/A
Active personnel 195,900 (April 2006) (ranked 28th)
Reserve personnel 191,300 regular reserve (April 2005)
42,300 volunteer reserve (April 2005)

China
Military age 18 years of age
Voluntary ages 18-49 to join
Availability males ages of 18-49: 342,956,265
female age 18-49: 324,701,244 (2005 est.)
Fit for military service males age 18-49: 281,240,272
female age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)
Active troops 2,250,000 (Ranked 1st)
Total troops 7,024,000 (Ranked 3rd)
Paramilitary force 3,969,000
Reaching military age annually males: 13,186,433
females : 12,298,149 (2005 est.)

Russia
Military age 18 years of age
Availability males age 18-49: 35,247,049 (2005 est.)
Fit for military service males age 18-49: 21,000,000 (2006 est.)[3]
Reaching military age annually 1,500,000 (2005 est.)
Active troops 1,037,000[4] (Ranked 5th)
Total troops 3,796,100[citation needed] (Ranked 5th)


From those figures provided China has the largest military. It is not just a matter of quantity over quality. If a huge war occurs that takes the lives of tens of Millions most currently active personal will be KIA/MIA. If a global war occurs it will come down to who has the heart to win, who has the money to fight the war, and who has the population to last a long drawn out war. Also it is who can train conscripts the fastest.

But back to the UK and the US. These two countries are highly powerful. Every ounce of respect should be given to the service personal of both of these fine countries.

A question of whos military is better is not Who's military is better on paper. There are many different factors when you are saying which world Armed Force is the best. Let us not forget WW2. When the sleeping giant was awoken, the United States it was the United States production and industry that crippled the enemy. In warfare it is not only who has the best soldiers but the best ability to produce weapons of war, To produce food for it's people and troops, there are so many things that need to be thought of while fighting a war.

War is just not a game of chess. War is a very intricate art.



Oh and yes the SAS kicked ass. They were the first, they laid the foundations for it all.

[killtacular]

Up untill the Gulf war the united states has never struck first.