Odin'Izm, sorry but tell you what, the only countries stronger than India in case of a war are America, Russia and China. So that surely makes India one of the strongest countries in the world. But I agree with Fraggle Rocker, India probably will not risk a war because it doesnt want to fight against the muslim community. But India's forces are one of the strongest in the world. The only problem they have is corruption. If they can overcome that factor which is slowing them down greatly, then they prove as an potential threat even to the US. Why, if US was trying to invade India without nukes, US would fail. And about Canada, I am a Canadian. IF like say 3000 US soldiers walked into Canada, Canada would like give up. Our military has never been strong and will never be strong enough to even scratch the army of the US. But if WWIII is between US and muslim nations, you can be sure that it is very hard to predict the outcome, if it is a nuclear war.
I am just waiting for George Bush Junior to call down his secret Star Destroyer Fleet and unleash a bombardment of lazers and Tie Fighters upon the everso innocent beings on this planet. After the bombardment and centries later, by that time all of the bacteria and little animals would have been mutated from the highly sophisticated technologies and turn into massive Godzilla like entities. They all have lazer beam eyes and huge flamboiant butterfly wings and not to be fucked with. That is who WW3 is going to be between. (dont worry I'll close the door )
the military has never been able to hold off an invasion by itself, but do you really think that we are just going to leave the guns in the cupboard and let america walk right in? anyone with a gun will be shooting them up, may i remind you of the french and dutch resistance durnig WW2 and the iraqi resistance in iraq now. ordinary people getting their guns and defending their homes
Sorry but : 1, india is in deep poverty and would not sustain a war. 2, if your talking about nukes , france has the third largest stockpile after russia , america , followed by china and then by britain. Not only that but india's nukes are terrible worse then the rusty ones the russians have. 3, why would they want to go to war to begin with?
Man, Whats up with you guys? India is in poverty. Yes. But might I remind you that it has one of the highest GDP in the world.
On one side India has a billion people, a good education system an a tradition of deep thinking, wide spread use of English, and a developing high tech industry. India is like 300 x Jamaica. One Jamaica has no power but 300 Jamaicas would have some power. On the other hand Indians are a little poorer than Jamaicans. Mid level political corruption is a serious problem in India. Quality control in manufacturing is a cultural problem for Indians. Most importantly in terms of vulnerability to outside power there are many serious divisions in India that could be easily exploited if something like the CIA wanted to send India into a chaos of civil war, terrorism, rage, desperation, hunger and economic collapse. Currently Assam, Kashmir and Punjab have independence movements. There are tensions between the educated / wealthy and the uneducated / poor. There are tensions between the Hindu fundamentalists and everybody (Moslems, all other religions, Hindu secularists, Western influence) else. There are Tensions between the Hindi speaking 35% and everybody else. There are tensions between the lighter and mid skinned Indo-European peoples and the darker Dravidian South. Each linguistic group (sample is 1st class train riders making conversation with an American in 1988) seem to enjoy putting down other ethnicites.
Nirakar, I agree. The point I was trying to make was that despite India's poverty and corruption, in case of a war, it would remain as one of the strongest countries in the world
Ye right , even if they can priduce alot with their GPD thats irrelevant during war , their army is badly trained , mal financed and unable to supress an invasion from a stronger power eg china their military technology consists of past-era soviet equipment which is usless when compared to modern technologies... look what america did to iraq. (exclude shooting down their own planes)
All that production capacity doesn't mean much when it should be easy to poison the country's two main rivers and carpetbomb its major industrial centers. The rest of the country is 100% third world.
That is OK. As long as one soldier was using the river as his water supply then any civilians that die are legitamite collateral damage. It is the moral responsibilty for weaker nations to never station any soldiers within the same watershed as any civilians when under attack from a stronger nation. Anybody from a weaker nation who resists an attack from a stronger nation or encourages others to resist an attack from a stronger nation should be hung as a terrorist war criminal because they are causing civilians to be killed as collateral damage.
ww3 would not be an outright war, the begginnings of it are already in iraq, it will have to be an insurgency war, no force is going to openly start a war with the current nuclear capabilities of US, russia, france
