I'm looking at recent reports which estimate the U.S. as having 50% of the Earths Naval Forces by proportion. Good Lord. (Look at page 30 of the pdf in this link) http://myweb.fsu.edu/bbc09/Crisher-Souva%20-%20Power%20At%20Sea%20v2.0%20full.pdf

Now look at this link: http://www.military1.com/army/article/402211-how-much-stronger-is-the-us-military-compared-with-the-next-strongest-power

"We have 10 aircraft carriers. The good kind. Everyone else has 10. Combined."

"There are 8,400 attack helicopters in the world. The U.S. has 6,400 of them."

"The M1 Abrams tank has seen more combat than just about any other tank on the battlefield today. It has never been knocked out by enemy fire. (Completely killed). Ever.

China has less than 500 Type 99 tanks, that have just been developed, and are not even close to being as good as the Abrams. We have 8,700 Abrams."


People are actually underestimating the U.S. Army here.

Apish and moronic masses..... Wow, you sure know how to compliment, don't you! Your opinion of the government is one thing, but to insult the soldiers serving, and an entire population, calling them apish and moronic, is apish, moronic, and arrogant in itself.

I would say Israel is their closest ally.

With Russia fighting with the EU, this is a good one.

US+Mexico+Canada though has a massive amount of resources and could pretty well survive without help from the outside world while I think the EU would have to rely too heavily on russia and the outside world to support them. And NA would be more unified, The US has more modern military experience than any country in the world atm and a good chunk of the EU is going to be fairly useless militarily.  + thy've been spying a shit ton on the entire world for a while now so they'd know a lot of weaknesses to go after right away.

We'd at least get to see all those secret weapons the US has.

not saying America would win but doesn't the U.S spend more money on it's military than like the next 5 countries combined?

EDIT: I stand corrected...it might be even more

http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/securityspending/articles/2012_topline_global_defense_spending/

China and Russia do work together internationally from time to time and do not try to provoke each other too much, as they both are strong powers. The same is true between Russia and the US and China and the US. Diplomacy between this powers is always calm and friendly. They might have their touchy topics, but they never let it escalate too much.

And Russia fights a war on terror in Chechen. That are muslims. China does the same againts Uigurs. Taht are muslims. Russia invaded Afganistan and fought the Taliban some decades ago. Back then the US supported the Taliban. No, they will not form an alliance against the US.

Did you know that the M1 Abrams is no longer in production?

Also, I agree that it's a very good tank, but both the british Challenger or the German Leopard A5 (still in production) are excellent tanks too that not only are comparable to the Abrams, but also surpass it. In autonomy, for example.

It does, but to win or lose in war is not simple like we got more army =  we win.  Every bigger city in USA is on coast, it is very hard to defend them. China got the same problem. But, to be honest, EU is so fckin small, US planes needs just hours to fly all around EU. 

Well, the numbers are clear: about 400,000 casualties = only 0.6% of all WW2 casualties. Everyone can interpret that number as he likes, I interpret them as US sacrifices in WW2 being low. And if one judges a country's "sacrifice" in WW2 by looking at how many % of that country's population died (which makes sense when it comes to judging a whole country's "sacrifice", as it takes a country's size into account), US WW2 sacrifice looks even more neglectable: 0.32%. The average of all countries in the world was 8 times higher, 2.5%.

Now I don't deny that the US nevertheless had a huuuge impact on WW2, and I'm actually glad the US was involved, because ultimately my own country benefitted a lot, it may have been the only country that ever actually benefitted from US war efforts. But the motives of course had absolutely nothing to do with morals or anything, it was completely for the government's own selfish reasons: WW2 made them the only global superpower, up to this date.

Sure, the same applied to the europeans as well. The actual european population was probably even much more against the war, as people are much more likely to advocate a war "in a land far, far away", than a war right before their doorstep, which will completely devastate their own home and country. If the US would only once fight a real, WW2-like war on their own territory and the US population would see the horrors of war with their own eyes and pay with their own blood, I believe the US would forever be cured from bringing war to the world.

That is very possible, I'm not really a tank expert.  However, the numbers are overwhelming.  The U.S. could have ~15 times the tank numbers of Europe (if they really have 18 times what China has).