Top 10 military powers TOPYAPS

[sanibhagwan]

okay then revise the history through this link. . Babur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really don't know what to say. Atleast please refrain from debunking senior posters like pakistani nationalist.

Babur was victorious against Delhi Sultanate (Muhammad of Ghor )

Babur killed fellow muslims (100,000 of them) and you take great pride in it.

One analogy to explain it is. Babur and ghauri missiles are pitted against each other and you were cheering for Babur missile.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

okay then revise the history through this link. . Babur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes he fought 100000 lodhi pashtuns..... with more thn 25,000 soldier...... i think he was aided by janjua rajputs against sultan of delhi etc.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I really don't know what to say. Atleast please refrain from debunking senior posters like pakistani nationalist.

Babur was victorious against Delhi Sultanate (Muhammad of Ghor )

Babur killed fellow muslims (100,000 of them) and you take great pride in it.

One analogy to explain it is. Babur and ghauri missiles are pitted against each other and you were cheering for Babur missile.

I think he is mughal...Coz only mughals use mirza as a title.

 

[Obambam]

If the threat to all members of this bloc is common enough AND if said threat is serious enough, then members of this bloc will lay aside their political differences and unite behind a common cause. The aggressor have no choice but to treat the bloc as a unitary nation-state.

Now that is a BIG if? However, this is irrelevant to my response as we are comparing nations, not blocks. Otherwise I would have thrown BRIC or SCO into the mix.

 

[sanibhagwan]

I think he is mughal...Coz only mughals use mirza as a title.

Babur was Mughal (Mongol), but Delhi sultanate was Turkic.

My last post on this topic. As it is OT here.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Babur was Mughal (Mongol), but Delhi sultanate was Turkic.

My last post on this topic. As it is OT here.

Mughals wont agree with u.

They claim to be turks..

 

[rockstarIN]

Mughals wont agree with u.

They claim to be turks..

Will do DNA check

 

[KS]

Top 10s seem misleading. I'd say, put it like this:

Top level: US - superpower
2nd level: China Russia India - can't be militarily conquered due to resources, technology, military quantity, and geography
3rd level: France UK - has 1 weakness out of resources, technology, military quantity, or geography
4th level: Japan Germany Israel Pakistan South Korea - has 2 weakness out of resources, technology, military quantity, or geography

Rest don't matter.

I would put India at 2.5.

Definitely not on par with Russia and atleast not for now with China.

 

[gambit]

Now that is a BIG if? However, this is irrelevant to my response as we are comparing nations, not blocks. Otherwise I would have thrown BRIC or SCO into the mix.

When the question involve the word 'militarily' it is appropriate to consider an alliance that is either military in nature, such as NATO, or has a strong military component in said alliance, such as the EU. BRIC is not an alliance. It is a group, or 'bloc', whose individuals have similar economic stature. The word 'bloc' is used casually here.

BRIC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, as the European Union has done. However, there are some indications that the "four BRIC countries have been seeking to form a 'political club' or 'alliance'", and thereby converting "their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout".

The Shanghai Cooperation Org. (SCO) is appropriate for this discussion because SCO is an official alliance that has a strong military component...

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is an intergovernmental mutual-security organisation which was founded in 2001 in Shanghai by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

If an alliance demand members to support each other in matters of mutual national securities, and not when one member has a tiff with someone outside the alliance that does not threaten the security of the other members, then it would be wise to consider the alliance as a unitary nation-state.

 

[Obambam]

When the question involve the word 'militarily' it is appropriate to consider an alliance that is either military in nature, such as NATO, or has a strong military component in said alliance, such as the EU. BRIC is not an alliance. It is a group, or 'bloc', whose individuals have similar economic stature. The word 'bloc' is used casually here.

BRIC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Shanghai Cooperation Org. (SCO) is appropriate for this discussion because SCO is an official alliance that has a strong military component...

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If an alliance demand members to support each other in matters of mutual national securities, and not when one member has a tiff with someone outside the alliance that does not threaten the security of the other members, then it would be wise to consider the alliance as a unitary nation-state.

If said threat is serious enough, then members of these blocks will lay aside their political differences and unite behind a common cause. The aggressor have no choice but to treat the block as a unitary nation-state. This is also applicable to the SCO and the BRIC. When national, geopolitical and economical interests are severely threatened they too will have no choice but to lay aside their political difference and unite behind a common cause. It comes down to who has the most efficient army and money to finance such war.

Back to topic: I still think Israel is behind India and Russia and As for NATO, it is not a country and is therefore irrelevant to comparison with other countries.

 

[DelhiDareDevil]

Top 10s seem misleading. I'd say, put it like this:

Top level: US - superpower
2nd level: China Russia - can't be militarily conquered due to resources, technology, military quantity, and geography
3rd level: France UK India, Pakistan - has 1 weakness out of resources, technology, military quantity, or geography
4th level: Japan Germany Israel South Korea - has 2 weakness out of resources, technology, military quantity, or geography

This is more reliable.

 

[gambit]

If said threat is serious enough, then members of these blocks will lay aside their political differences and unite behind a common cause. The aggressor have no choice but to treat the block as a unitary nation-state. This is also applicable to the SCO and the BRIC. When national, geopolitical and economical interests are severely threatened they too will have no choice but to lay aside their political difference and unite behind a common cause. It comes down to who has the most efficient army and money to finance such war.

But BRIC is not an alliance. It is merely an economic development descriptive label attached to a few countries. Brazil does not have the same political and military needs and priorities as Russia or India or China. If there is a conflict of any level between Russia and Japan, will Brazil or India come to Russia's assistance? Hardly.

Back to topic: I still think Israel is behind India and Russia and As for NATO, it is not a country and is therefore irrelevant to comparison with other countries.

Pick a fight with any NATO member, and if the challenger is not a NATO member, said challenger will have to take on all members.

 

[perplexed]

2nd level: China Russia - can't be militarily conquered due to resources, technology, military quantity, and geography
3rd level: France UK India, Pakistan - has 1 weakness out of resources, technology, military quantity, or geography

U mean India can be militarily conquered ?
quit smoking cheap weed ! Its harmful for ur health.

 

[angeldemon_007]

^^^

I think UK should give a try....and they will find out themselves...
Funny thing is this guy is including Pakistan among us. Just look at the navies of US, UK and India and then look at a dozen vessels which comprise PN. Seriously mate and you put Japan Germany Israel South Korea after Pakistan ??
Could you just explain to all of us how you did this childish comparison ?? Look man nobody here is talking out of nationalism, we are talking based on facts.

 

[Obambam]

But BRIC is not an alliance. It is merely an economic development descriptive label attached to a few countries. Brazil does not have the same political and military needs and priorities as Russia or India or China. If there is a conflict of any level between Russia and Japan, will Brazil or India come to Russia's assistance? Hardly.

BRIC at present is economic centric. That is not to say that it will not evolve into a military one, especially when common interest of the block is severely threatened.

Pick a fight with any NATO member, and if the challenger is not a NATO member, said challenger will have to take on all members.

There is no need to pick a fight with anyone in NATO, since NATO can only 'Afford' to pick fights with tiny countries (which says it all). Not to mention NATO needs to consider the geography of the battle theater, resource, military power as well as legit reasons for them to go into war. The fact that they don't always put in the same level of effort i.e. in Libya and the second Iraq invasion means they are a fluctuating power. Many members in NATO are in such a bad state internally that they simply cannot afford to go to war even if they want to.

So when you discuss military powers from one to ten, it only makes sense to not talk in blocks, but instead on individual nations.

This is why I still dismiss NATO here and still regards Israel as the weaker military power when compared to India and Russia.