If war was sport and you ranked the countries, who is in your top ten and who is in your bottom ten? I think it might be a good idea to come to some consensus so we can update the list as wars continue to happen?

In a short time during the modern era Israel has proven to be a legitimate candidate for a move to the top but when they're only taking on weak opposition its hard to get a good read. The USA has definitely fumbled the ball recently and are dropping in the world rankings in my humble opinion. France is still the worst of the worst, ranked below Switzerland. China looks like they have potential but they still need a big win over a contender not little fish like Tibet and why aren't they spanking Taiwan?

Russia is another country in a war slump, no way number one. Germany you must admit had a good 20th century but also suffered 2 big losses so I don't know where they fit in. Britain did ok at the Falklands but didn't have an easy win over the rookie laden Argentine forces. Still waiting for a legitimate contender from the Arab states.

So who in your opinion is number one? Which nation should have the honor of top warring nation and who are the worst?

Wow! For the Superbowl of War? Definitely Israel on the ground forces, but I'll give the skies to the US. I don't know the rankings for the navies of the world. My own prejudices says USN all the way, but that's without knowing squat about anyone else's navy. As long as the politicians stay out of it, that's my vote.

Germany you must admit had a good 20th century but also suffered 2 big losses so I don't know where they fit in.

Heh, Germany is the Phil Mickelson of War -- real good but somehow always seems to lose in the end. Luckily, he finally won his jacket last year.

Curious, but why do you rank Switzerland so low? They were the go-to countries for mercenaries. They also have one helluva dug-in position and would be able to fend off real well. There's very few ways into the country, each household is armed, they have tons of harriers in their mountain hangars. If I had to pick a place to make a last stand, it'd be Switzerland for survival.

- N

Heh, Germany is the Phil Mickelson of War -- real good but somehow always seems to lose in the end. Luckily, he finally won his jacket last year.

Curious, but why do you rank Switzerland so low? They were the go-to countries for mercenaries. They also have one helluva dug-in position and would be able to fend off real well. There's very few ways into the country, each household is armed, they have tons of harriers in their mountain hangars. If I had to pick a place to make a last stand, it'd be Switzerland for survival.

- N

The rankings are based on past performances with emphasis on more recent contests. Switzerland I associate with neutrality but rank them however you wish. I have a feeling France is a near unanimous pick for last place but maybe there are some out there who think otherwise. Ranking France below a neutral country seemed appropriate.

Britain and Israel are the only contenders. They've gained their experience in Northern Ireland and Palestine. As for the Americans, yes they are technologically superior but when it comes to basic soldiering they're useless.
Also Britain and Israel have the best special operation forces in the world namely the SAS, SBS and Mossad

I'll pick USN for my navy, and brittian as my air force. Maybe a mix from americas marines, and indeed israel has made some moving ground for it's self. Worst few would have to be turkey, russia and south africa.

Heh, Germany is the Phil Mickelson of War -- real good but somehow always seems to lose in the end. Luckily, he finally won his jacket last year.

Curious, but why do you rank Switzerland so low? They were the go-to countries for mercenaries. They also have one helluva dug-in position and would be able to fend off real well. There's very few ways into the country, each household is armed, they have tons of harriers in their mountain hangars. If I had to pick a place to make a last stand, it'd be Switzerland for survival.

- N


I'd be more concerned with having to pay so much money, to convince them to let you stay.

Well if you take the politics out of it USA hands down. We got the tech, the training, and the numbers. If politics was not a concern there isn't anation we can take or destroy, even without nuclear weapons.

Since politics does play a roll the Spuerbowl would be Us led NATO forces versus a Chinese-Russu-Islamo alliance.

Curious, but why do you rank Switzerland so low? They were the go-to countries for mercenaries. They also have one helluva dug-in position and would be able to fend off real well. There's very few ways into the country, each household is armed, they have tons of harriers in their mountain hangars. If I had to pick a place to make a last stand, it'd be Switzerland for survival.
- N
Ever read any John Ringo? He has a series of scifi novels in which carnivorous aliens from hell invade earth. Switzerland does quite well, relatively speaking. Of course more than ninely percent of the human race is killed with most of them being eaten....Still, we kick the aliens ass in the end.

Regarding the thread topic, if you're talking two armies of equal size duking it out in a no holds barred cage match, it's USA all the way.

"Well if you take the politics out of it USA hands down. We got the tech, the training, and the numbers. If politics was not a concern there isn't anation we can take or destroy, even without nuclear weapons."

So Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are just victories in disguise?

if you're talking two armies of equal size duking it out in a no holds barred cage match, it's USA all the way.

Why's that?

american military historically excels in the field of destruction.

it is the peacekeeping, and post-war drama that kills us in the end.

"Well if you take the politics out of it USA hands down. We got the tech, the training, and the numbers. If politics was not a concern there isn't anation we can take or destroy, even without nuclear weapons."

So Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are just victories in disguise?

No Vietanm was a mess handed to us by the French and then our politician tied the hands of the military. That was a political fiasco that manufactured a military failure.

Afghanistan and Iraq are proof we can smash a nation flat in a short amount of time. Our problem is that we did not have a solid plan for rebuilding the nation when we were done. Had we been working both angles at once it would have been a quick decisive victory. Now it's a slow one, but we will prevail.

Finland.

They kicked the Soviet's ass during WW2 despite being totally outgunned.

Switzerland and Sweden will be the umpires, probably by unanimous vote.

North Korea puts on the half-time show.

We won in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

Do you see the same government in Iraq? Where is Saddam now? Who is taking a shower and eating hot dogs in Hussein's private palace?

The fact that there are rebels does not mean we lost. We won, we smashed the military and their government. The reason this is taking so long is political. If we wanted to, we could just start killing/bombing anyone and everyone we think to be a terrorist until the infrastructure of Iraq is blown to pieces. Do we want to do that? no. So we are fighting rebels and our ideals of humane treatment. Do not for one second doubt that the U.S. could crush this Iraqi rebeliion in less than a month if the handcuffs were removed.

Switzerland and Sweden will be the umpires, probably by unanimous vote.

North Korea puts on the half-time show.
the big question is: who is "home" and who is "away"?

We won in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

Do you see the same government in Iraq? Where is Saddam now? Who is taking a shower and eating hot dogs in Hussein's private palace?


You lost in Vietnam. Packing up and running away, deserting your ally to be conquered, leaving the enemy with victory does not equal winning. If the enemy wins, how can you win too?

I am sure that the Soviets said "we won" in Afghanistan before the guerrilla warfare kicked in. Let's not be too hasty coming to conclusions now shall we? I know you yanks are a macho patriotic lot but let's at least try to be objective.

So apparently we 'ran away' because we lost and not because of political pressure eh?

The Vietnamese were hardly an "ally". Allies cooperate and don't play stupid little political games against the people who they supposedly want help from. I don't consider Vietnam a victory, but I do hope its considered a lesson.

So apparently we 'ran away' because we lost and not because of political pressure eh?

How can you consider it a victory when your enemy won?

HonorAndStrength, I agree with you we didn't lose because of performance on the battle field we were sold out by the politicians for a political purpose.

So....in other words, you still lost?

Either you concede that you lost Vietnam, or we Brits get to say we won the revolutionary war, because the situation was exactly the same.

So....in other words, you still lost?

Either you concede that you lost Vietnam, or we Brits get to say we won the revolutionary war, because the situation was exactly the same.

lol that made me laugh good one, i'll respond later

Actually we did sign a Cease Fire which the North promptly violated and we just didn't go back, and we never went back to enforce the cease fire, our politicians sold out the South Vietnams and our Dead.

Peace With Honor: Nixon's Speech on the Agreement to end the War ...
The agreement will be formally signed by the parties participating in the Paris Conference on Vietnam on January 27, 1973, at the International Conference ...
http://www.watergate.info/nixon/73-01-23_vietnam.shtml