31 Aug 2016 12:24:00 If Hillary Clinton gets in she will support any Israeli aggression towards Iran.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
All that will be required during her presidency would be a false flag whereby Iran is blamed for an attack on Israel. In HC's warped view eyes that would legitimise an attack on Iran.
Before that, expect the US/ Russia proxy war in Syria to escalate even further, increased NATO buildup on the Estonian/ Russian border, and tension to increase in Ukraine. The strategy at the moment is to stretch the Russian army in as many directions as possible.
31 Aug 2016 10:21:57 My thoughts exactly Lavvers, surely we would be blitzed if we went against the likes of Russia and China. Still, you have to worry for your families.
31 Aug 2016 08:41:12 the big question for me is how the hell the most powerful nation on earth ends up with these two candidates in the first place, this is not going to end well, whoever wins.
11 Aug 2016 00:47:19 Yes troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea. Plus what was in Iraq and Afghanistan which is being redeployed. The the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean fleets.
Russia an China are pretty much all at home. America particularly with its navy an air force has more of a force projection.
10 Aug 2016 09:42:12 Two hours is a touch optimistic. Britain has some troops on high readiness, I can't remember the exact notice to move but it's something like a company of infantry (100 soldiers) on 48 hours and a Battalion (600 soldiers) on 5 days. Britain has its own strategic lift capability to get them to any friendly airfield in as long as it takes to fly there along with light vehicles and short term supplies. Our global coverage is a lot less than it used to be though, I think we have deployable soldiers in the UK, Germany, Cyprus and Brunei now.
After that then it's a bit more tailor made, the more complex the formation the longer it takes to deploy. We were in no great rush but in our last major emergency deployment, the 1st gulf war, the coalition took 5 months to prepare, Britain deployed around 50,000 soldiers for that conflict.
09 Aug 2016 23:20:30 If it's logistics then surely Britain is up there, I read that they can deploy troops anywhere in the world within 2 hours or something. Due to the huge network of overseas bases.
09 Aug 2016 15:18:20 I hadn't seen it. There are various organisations that that rank various nations military capabilities. Janes's for example. They all agree current number one is America. This website may be of use.
09 Aug 2016 14:56:34 I'm not Kim but I know a little about this subject. Ignoring the simple answer (it's America) the question of 'who has the best military' needs refinement. Some countries have a very specialised military that's brilliant at what it wants it to do (Israel for example) but could never conduct a large scale operation against another established power.
To me the mark of a good military is the ability to independently plan, conduct, support and maintain a large scale foreign deployment. Arguably the only nations in the world that can do that are the US, Britain, France and Russia. China may be the 5th but whether they have the expertise and support network isn't clear.
Fighting is actually the easy bit, it's all the boring stuff around that that makes war hard.
Rian · 31 Aug 2016 11:30
