What countries in the world have significant worldwide deployable combat forces?

[tnitsuj]

I would say:

1st tier

US
Britian
France
Germany
Japan (questionable due to thier constitution, but they are up there in terms of training/technology)


2nd tier

Russia (iffy)
Spain
Italy
India
Pakistan
Turkey
South Korea
Canada
Australia

 

[UltraQuiet]

I think South Korea fits on that list somewhere. Guys I know who have served over there say that their light infrantry/Marines are as good as anyones. They have about 700k troops on active duty.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I think South Korea fits on that list somewhere. Guys I know who have served over there say that their light infrantry/Marines are as good as anyones. They have about 700k troops on active duty.

Deployable soldiers?

Really only Britain and the US have a truly deployable force due to air and navy...

Russias military needs money and help but the Soviets was pretty mobile.

If any country was sending an invasion force to the US by ship, the navy would sink it via sub. If its by air, our air force/navy would shoot them down.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
I think South Korea fits on that list somewhere. Guys I know who have served over there say that their light infrantry/Marines are as good as anyones. They have about 700k troops on active duty.

oops, forgot them. I am also wondering how you define deployable. If you define deployable as being able to go anywhere you want in the world with your own resources in the face of any level of opposition, that list shrinks a lot.

 

[SuperTool]

Canada? Australia? Israel?

 

[dahunan]

China is really that bad off?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: dahunan
China is really that bad off?

I suppose if you told them to walk to their invasion then they are mobile...but how do you get them here?

 

[Perknose]

'If you define deployable as being able to go anywhere you want in the world with your own resources in the face of any level of opposition" then that's us, and only us.

If you define deployable as being able to go anywhere you want in the world with your own resources in the face of any level of opposition no greater than Argentina and then only if everyone involved is willing to wait a few weeks for arequistiioned QE2to arrive with the troops, then you can add Great Britian to the list.

France has a deployable force, and the former African colonies it still meddles in to prove it. They even have a modern, nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

Germany and Japan are still cowed/restricted by treaty and post war tradition.

The former Russian fleet is a shambles.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: dahunan

China is really that bad off?

I suppose if you told them to walk to their invasion then they are mobile...but how do you get them here?

True they are very un-deployable, however many of those other nations listed depend on chartered aircraft such as the Ukrainian AN-124s to move their forces into region. So maybe thousands of charter freighter flights could move the PLA into position.

Zephyr

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

I think South Korea fits on that list somewhere. Guys I know who have served over there say that their light infrantry/Marines are as good as anyones. They have about 700k troops on active duty.

Deployable soldiers?

Really only Britain and the US have a truly deployable force due to air and navy...

Russias military needs money and help but the Soviets was pretty mobile.

If any country was sending an invasion force to the US by ship, the navy would sink it via sub. If its by air, our air force/navy would shoot them down.

Didn't France deploy soldiers to Africa last year?

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: dahunan
China is really that bad off?

China doesn't even have the capacity to mount a credible invasion of Taiwain.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Didn't France deploy soldiers to Africa last year?

Yup. Look two posts up.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

I think South Korea fits on that list somewhere. Guys I know who have served over there say that their light infrantry/Marines are as good as anyones. They have about 700k troops on active duty.

Deployable soldiers?

Really only Britain and the US have a truly deployable force due to air and navy...

Russias military needs money and help but the Soviets was pretty mobile.

If any country was sending an invasion force to the US by ship, the navy would sink it via sub. If its by air, our air force/navy would shoot them down.

Didn't France deploy soldiers to Africa last year?

They deploy peacekeepers quite a bit to former colonies.

Germany and Japan are still cowed/restricted by treaty and post war tradition.

Not so much tradition, but more like constitutionally banned, although both have decent militaries regardless of the ban.(ie: Japan has one of the highest military budgets. Only the United States(duh! )Russia and China(their budget is always questionable, but I've seen several sources put it around $40-50 billion. However, you have to take the size of its military force into consideration though before you say that is a lot compared to other nations. China has a lot more people to equip and feed than Japan) spend more, although Britain is around the same.(they might actually be slightly higher because of certain armaments Britain has that Japan does not))

 

[Martin]

I think only the US, France and Britain. Germany, Russia and Japan might, but they have some obstacles to overcome (money for russia, will for Germany and constitution for Japan). Everyone else (Canada, Autralia, Italy, Spain, SK etc) would have a lot of trouble doing anything useful.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I think only the US, France and Britain. Germany, Russia and Japan might, but they have some obstacles to overcome (money for russia, will for Germany and constitution for Japan). Everyone else (Canada, Autralia, Italy, Spain, SK etc) would have a lot of trouble doing anything useful.

You're wrong about Spain! They deployed to that goat-herding football field sized island next to Morocco last year to fight the Moroccan invaders

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I think only the US, France and Britain. Germany, Russia and Japan might, but they have some obstacles to overcome (money for russia, will for Germany and constitution for Japan). Everyone else (Canada, Autralia, Italy, Spain, SK etc) would have a lot of trouble doing anything useful.

You're wrong about Spain! They deployed to that goat-herding football field sized island next to Morocco last year to fight the Moroccan invaders

speaking of petty squables over insignificant rocks, it seems Canada and Denmark are involed in one right now, this one for a rock off the coast of greenland.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040330-021603-6677r.htm

 

[DaFinn]

In addition, Greek and Turkey are on eternal alert with their disputes concernin the islands between the two countries. And also Cypros in the past. Granted, they are not deployable "anywhere" in the world, but both nations have a large number of landing troops.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I think only the US, France and Britain. Germany, Russia and Japan might, but they have some obstacles to overcome (money for russia, will for Germany and constitution for Japan). Everyone else (Canada, Autralia, Italy, Spain, SK etc) would have a lot of trouble doing anything useful.

You're wrong about Spain! They deployed to that goat-herding football field sized island next to Morocco last year to fight the Moroccan invaders

speaking of petty squables over insignificant rocks, it seems Canada and Denmark are involed in one right now, this one for a rock off the coast of greenland.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040330-021603-6677r.htm

Yep, I've read about that before. I've read that the main concern is fishing water rights though, so it's a bigger story than just an insignificant, uninhabited island.

 

[DaFinn]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I think only the US, France and Britain. Germany, Russia and Japan might, but they have some obstacles to overcome (money for russia, will for Germany and constitution for Japan). Everyone else (Canada, Autralia, Italy, Spain, SK etc) would have a lot of trouble doing anything useful.

Spain:

1 Aircraft Carrier
8 Submarines
4 Aegis Frigates
11 Frigates
2 Landing support ships (130 tanks, helicopters, landing vessels...)
2 Large landing ships
65 Various sizeLanding ships

Oh yes, Spain can deploy...

Italy:

1 Aircraft carrier
1 Helicopter Carrier
10 Submarines
4 Destroyers
18 Frigates
1 Large multipurpose Landing ship
3 Large Landing support ships
31 Landing ships of various size.

Yup...

Looking at the numbers of different Naval forces, it would be:

1. US
2. UK
3. France
4. Spain, Italy...
5. Russia
6. India
...
Germany does not have the ability at the moment to deploy, since non has been build/ needed due to reasons we all know... Same goes for Japan. Both have a numerous force, but not the ability to deploy on their own.

China... yup if they use rowing boats.

 

[Czar]

South Africa is the major bulk of UN forces all around Africa I think, in some countries there at least