This is a real cool site for those of you who wonder what countries have the strongest militaries and how they stack up against eachother.

 

Top 5 Militaries

 

My AP World History teacher used this during class last week, he said that this site was put together by a History Professor at The University of Florida.

Here's the problem.

 

 

Its irresponsible history. History professors should know better. They need to give their sources.

 

But let's find out what these sources are.

Das, I dont see where this information is irresponsible. These are facts that can be looked up in most encyclopedia books and I also beleive these are numbers that members of the UN have to submit to remain in the UN. I just don't see how this info is so bad for a history professor to introduce to his students. Enlighten me though, I want understand what you are saying.

Das, I dont see where this information is irresponsible. These are facts that can be looked up in most encyclopedia books and I also beleive these are numbers that members of the UN have to submit to remain in the UN. I just don't see how this info is so bad for a history professor to introduce to his students. Enlighten me though, I want understand what you are saying.

 

 

Any historian doing reliable research needs to give a list of their sources for their information. That's the way it works in the industry. Not putting your sources, especially giving something as generic as given on the website is unreliable, any historian worth their weight would know that, but then again maybe thats why they use the generic history dept instead of any names. I'll hopefully find out soon.

I vomit when I see the top 5 countries have 27,000 some odd nuclear warheads in their total arsenals. Hooray for mass destruction.

Das, I dont see where this information is irresponsible. These are facts that can be looked up in most encyclopedia books and I also beleive these are numbers that members of the UN have to submit to remain in the UN. I just don't see how this info is so bad for a history professor to introduce to his students. Enlighten me though, I want understand what you are saying.

 

 

Any historian doing reliable research needs to give a list of their sources for their information. That's the way it works in the industry. Not putting your sources, especially giving something as generic as given on the website is unreliable, any historian worth their weight would know that, but then again maybe thats why they use the generic history dept instead of any names. I'll hopefully find out soon.

Yessir.

 

This information has come from reliable factual sources, both from text and internet. This site contains information obtained from the History Department at The University of Florida. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns you can contact the webmaster at [email protected]

Sorry guys, that's certainly not sources.

Let's see...I'll trade you my Russia and India card for your Israel and...25 tanks.

 

Deal?

The number of troops seems way too high for the U.S. I think most of those are un-enlisted officers and logistical personnel.

After the first couple of biggest/baddest militaries, there's a REAL big dropoff anyways.

After the first couple of biggest/baddest militaries, there's a REAL big dropoff anyways.

 

Yeah, I don't think we'll have to worry about Djibouti for awhile. :thumbup

by far the most powerful military in the world, but what good does that do us if we go into a conflict under false-pretenses and unprepared for governing after the war? we're still getting our asses kicked in iraq.

I vomit when I see the top 5 countries have 27,000 some odd nuclear warheads in their total arsenals. Hooray for mass destruction.

 

It's probably safer for us to have 27,000 nukes as opposed to 27 nukes. Mutually assured destruction is a morbidly comforting, whereas a country with like a half dozen would concern me a whole helluva lot more.

by far the most powerful military in the world, but what good does that do us if we go into a conflict under false-pretenses and unprepared for governing after the war? we're still getting our asses kicked in iraq.

How are we getting our asses kicked in Iraq?

 

 

I don't like the war at all, but damn, this ain't Vietnam in terms of troop losses. And even then, we were not losing the war till the Tet Offensive was shown on television.

Das, I dont see where this information is irresponsible. These are facts that can be looked up in most encyclopedia books and I also beleive these are numbers that members of the UN have to submit to remain in the UN. I just don't see how this info is so bad for a history professor to introduce to his students. Enlighten me though, I want understand what you are saying.

 

 

Any historian doing reliable research needs to give a list of their sources for their information. That's the way it works in the industry. Not putting your sources, especially giving something as generic as given on the website is unreliable, any historian worth their weight would know that, but then again maybe thats why they use the generic history dept instead of any names. I'll hopefully find out soon.

 

Do you not see where it clearly states "ALL NUMBERS ARE ESTIMATES FROM THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, PUBLISHED IN THE BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS."

 

Come on now...

by far the most powerful military in the world, but what good does that do us if we go into a conflict under false-pretenses and unprepared for governing after the war? we're still getting our asses kicked in iraq.

How are we getting our asses kicked in Iraq?

 

 

I don't like the war at all, but damn, this ain't Vietnam in terms of troop losses. And even then, we were not losing the war till the Tet Offensive was shown on television.

I don't have exact numbers, but I wonder what the American-to-Iraqi death toll has been since our little "war" began (not including suiciders).

by far the most powerful military in the world, but what good does that do us if we go into a conflict under false-pretenses and unprepared for governing after the war? we're still getting our asses kicked in iraq.

How are we getting our asses kicked in Iraq?

 

 

I don't like the war at all, but damn, this ain't Vietnam in terms of troop losses. And even then, we were not losing the war till the Tet Offensive was shown on television.

I don't have exact numbers, but I wonder what the American-to-Iraqi death toll has been since our little "war" began (not including suiciders).

It's not even close. Tons more Iraqis die than Americans.

by far the most powerful military in the world, but what good does that do us if we go into a conflict under false-pretenses and unprepared for governing after the war? we're still getting our asses kicked in iraq.

How are we getting our asses kicked in Iraq?

 

 

I don't like the war at all, but damn, this ain't Vietnam in terms of troop losses. And even then, we were not losing the war till the Tet Offensive was shown on television.

I don't have exact numbers, but I wonder what the American-to-Iraqi death toll has been since our little "war" began (not including suiciders).

It's not even close. Tons more Iraqis die than Americans.

I just want to know the numbers (kinda unrelated, but I was curious).

Das, I dont see where this information is irresponsible. These are facts that can be looked up in most encyclopedia books and I also beleive these are numbers that members of the UN have to submit to remain in the UN. I just don't see how this info is so bad for a history professor to introduce to his students. Enlighten me though, I want understand what you are saying.

 

 

Any historian doing reliable research needs to give a list of their sources for their information. That's the way it works in the industry. Not putting your sources, especially giving something as generic as given on the website is unreliable, any historian worth their weight would know that, but then again maybe thats why they use the generic history dept instead of any names. I'll hopefully find out soon.

 

Do you not see where it clearly states "ALL NUMBERS ARE ESTIMATES FROM THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, PUBLISHED IN THE BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS."

 

Come on now...

 

 

:lol

 

you are a tool.

 

I have had my balls busted plenty of time for crap like this. Sorry when you are actually in the same world as these people, you know what you are talking about.

 

Run along, I simply want to know what their sources are, I'm not doubting anything, just want to be able to look it up if I wish, instead of taking it for the gospel truth.

by far the most powerful military in the world, but what good does that do us if we go into a conflict under false-pretenses and unprepared for governing after the war? we're still getting our asses kicked in iraq.

How are we getting our asses kicked in Iraq?

 

 

I don't like the war at all, but damn, this ain't Vietnam in terms of troop losses. And even then, we were not losing the war till the Tet Offensive was shown on television.

I don't have exact numbers, but I wonder what the American-to-Iraqi death toll has been since our little "war" began (not including suiciders).

It's not even close. Tons more Iraqis die than Americans.

 

tons more vietnamese died than americans. we still lost that war.

 

right now we're dealing with an insurgency, which means our losses are not going to be quite as heavy. if this gets worse we'll really getting our asses kicked.

by far the most powerful military in the world, but what good does that do us if we go into a conflict under false-pretenses and unprepared for governing after the war? we're still getting our asses kicked in iraq.

How are we getting our asses kicked in Iraq?

 

 

I don't like the war at all, but damn, this ain't Vietnam in terms of troop losses. And even then, we were not losing the war till the Tet Offensive was shown on television.

I don't have exact numbers, but I wonder what the American-to-Iraqi death toll has been since our little "war" began (not including suiciders).

It's not even close. Tons more Iraqis die than Americans.

 

tons more vietnamese died than americans. we still lost that war.

 

right now we're dealing with an insurgency, which means our losses are not going to be quite as heavy. if this gets worse we'll really getting our asses kicked.

 

The average number of US deaths has steadily been declining every single month for the past year.

 

What the hell are you talking about? The mere notion that we're getting our asses kicked in Iraq is nothing short of flat out stupidity.

We're only getting our "asses kicked" at home by the poor running of the war, etc.

 

Other than that, besides a few black eyes from Iraqi prisons and the notion that we'll leave Iraq in a worse state than we saved it from (merely potential speculation) OR that the people will just go back to that kind of treatment, the war has been a success.

If we do not do a good enough job with standing up this government, then we will almost certainly have created more terrorism than we stopped by invading Iraq.

 

Time will tell whether or not this was a success. Right now I would have to say that we are failing.

The invasion was a success. Rebuilding and maintaining stability and security has been a pretty solid failure.

The invasion was a success. Rebuilding and maintaining stability and security has been a pretty solid failure.

 

Give it time. Was America steady 3 years after the Revolution? Was Japan and Germany steady 3 years after WWII? No and No. It takes time.

The invasion was a success. Rebuilding and maintaining stability and security has been a pretty solid failure.

 

Give it time. Was America steady 3 years after the Revolution? Was Japan and Germany steady 3 years after WWII? No and No. It takes time.

Post-revolution America is the apple to Iraq's oranges.

 

I don't think Japan and Germany were even remotely as violent and chaotic as Iraq is now. There are other factors of course, like the people of those countries being sick of war and the presence of a unified culture. But those were always present warnings.