Probably a combination of not having nuclear weapons and not having any major strategic needs for a large military. Brazil’s like the United States was back in the twenties; lacking any immediate major threat, its economic power is not reflected in its military strength.
For those reasons I think the U.S. would be much more able to impose a trade embargo on China than vise-versa. The sort of heavy/mass manufacturing that China specialises in requires container ship transportation to be economically feasible and the U.S. easily has the military might to enforce a near-total bloackade on sea trade from China and her immediate neighbours if the political will was there (it would probably require sinking a lot of cargo ships, at least at first).
I also think that the strong Nationalist tendencies of the U.S. population would be a benefit here. There is nothing the U.S. likes more than a good, righteous war.
Before the first Gulf War Iraq was rated as the number 3 military power in the world (IIRC)…certainly in the top 5 at the time. The Chinese have and use (as the bulk of their main weapons systems) many of the same weapons the Iraqis had, and have comparable training overall.
Having 5000 more T-72’s or 10000 more Mig-21’s, or 2 million soldiers in your military gets you into the listings as a powerful military. In an actual conflict with a fully modern and well trained army, however, what it gets you is a lot of dead soldiers, burned out tanks and destroyed air craft. Putting China or Russia at 2 and 3 is, to me, on par with making Iraq the number 3 military before the first Gulf War. On paper it might work, but when you start to actually look at what those numbers mean (they translate into ‘targets’), it really doesn’t work.
YMMV, and hopefully we’ll never have to find out who has the biggest dick between the US and China (or between any of the major combatants). Based on the two Gulf Wars and the various wars the Israelis have fought, though, I think that countries fielding large amounts of Soviet era crap (whether it’s old or newly built) are going to find out that numbers are pretty meaningless today.
-XT
nobody else is bothered by the thread title? mods?
It’s a most cromulentest expression.
Bill Hicks did a bit about that. It was something like:
“They say Iraq has the 4th most powerful army in the world.”
“Yeah, but there’s a biiiiiiiig fuckin’ dropoff after the first three.”
Well China does have the Type 99 tank, which is fully the equal of an Abrams. And the J-10 and J-11 airplanes are roughly comparable to F-16s, while the J-20 is supposed to be potentially equivalent to an F-22. So it is not that they don’t have access to top tier weaponry. They just can’t afford to field more than about a 10th of that weaponry as the US. Which is OK for them, because of the US’s global obligations, it can’t bring more than a fraction of its power to bear in any one place at any one time anyway. So the Chinese may be able to achieve local temporary superiority, a capacity Iraq never had. It makes China a much more formidable opponent.
And they have enough of these elite units that, ignoring the rest of the Chinese military, they are definitely on a tier with the UK, France and Germany. Although they are probably on the lower end of that tier. And while the non-elite units may not be able to tangle with the big boys, they can guard the border with India just fine. Which frees up the elite units for any major threat that may develop. The two level army works well for the Chinese.
Yep, they have advanced weapons and even elite troops. No doubt. I do doubt that the Type 99 is REALLY the equal of an Abrams (or the British, French or German MBTs), but concede that it might be in the same ball park. But they don’t have that many of the things, and the bulk of their military is still using older Soviet patterned (usually knock offs) junk that would just be targets on a real battle field.
I agree that they are in the top 5 as well…I just don’t see them as being a strong number 2 and supposedly breathing down the US’s neck, militarily (or economically for that matter, thought that’s a different thread). The Chinese would not be able to project their better units externally any better than the Brits, French or Germans…in fact, I think they would be sub less capable trying to do this.
-XT
My understanding is that Brazil in fact intends to developp and modernize its military, to participate in peace-keping operations, etc… in order to enhance its position on the world stage.
Nope. During the prepa
Nope. During the preparation phase of the first gulf war, Irak was suddenly presented as being the 3rd military power in the world. I remember it quite well. It had never been rated like that before. It was only a propaganda point made to depict this country as a very serious threat.
However, they’re develloping a high seas navy. And I’ve read that they intend to build carriers.
Although I guess it will take at least a good decade between the moment they will actually make such a decision and the moment when they’ll have an operationg carrier, I guess they could have a significant force projection by, say, 2030 if they commit to it.
Everyone intends to build carriers. Hardly anyone actually follows through, and to this point the carrier-operating states not named US, UK, Russia and France are limited to buying those states’ mothballed ones.
Witness the Admiral Gorshkov/Vikramaditya saga. India is buying one of the last Soviet carriers- advanced in 1980, but hardly a match for current tech. $4 billion later, and it turns out India could have bought a brand new QEII-class ship from the UK for about the same price.
And a decade later, the same ploy was used with the WMDs.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Nope. During the preparation phase of the first gulf war, Irak was suddenly presented as being the 3rd military power in the world. I remember it quite well. It had never been rated like that before. It was only a propaganda point made to depict this country as a very serious threat.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a cite that this was a sudden and obviously propaganda driven elevation in their status? Not that ranking different countries military capability is a precise science, but Iraq DID have a really large standing army, using ‘modern’ Soviet tanks, planes, a large and capable artillery corp, and even logistics that at least allowed them to invade and crush Kuwait pretty easily (not that this was a difficult thing). I seem to recall the ranking came from Jane’s, though I might be misremembering…which is why I’m asking for a cite, since I really don’t know.
Simply building a carrier doesn’t give a navy an automatic mastery of the technology or training of your personnel to get the most out of it. Besides, I think there are several European countries with carriers already, or plans to build some (France is planning to build 1 or 2 supercarriers, aren’t they).
Also, having a carrier or two doesn’t give a country automatic power projection. You have to have the battle group to go along with it, including the ability to logistically support that carrier task group away from your home waters for extended periods of time. THAT is going to take the Chinese some serious time to perfect, and it leaves aside the other aspects of power projection, such as amphibious groups operations and the ability to support that as well. Just supplying and refitting the carriers and planes is going to be a much bigger challenge than I think a lot of folks realize for the Chinese. The US makes it look easy, but we’ve been doing carrier operations since there were carriers to do them with.
-XT
It doesn’t need to be a match for current tech. It’s not like carriers get in cage matches with each other to prove who’s best; and they don’t fight each other directly. They carry planes which bomb land targets.
Carriers simply need to fulfill their function. The fact that someone else has a better one doesn’t stop the carrier doing that thing. Nations don’t line equally designated ship types up against each other in formation in order to cancel each other out.
Though hilariously* we are apparently going to be in the position of having brand new aircraft carriers but no planes to go on them.
*by ‘hilarious’ I mean ‘crying into your Cornflakes’ if you’re a UK tax payer.
If it’s any consolation, it takes time to train crews, and the 2 year gap (IIRC) between having planes will give your sailors time to work up on the new carriers. And pilots can always train on simulators or air craft that have similar flight characteristics.
(IIRC, you plan to only use one carrier and mothball or sell the other one, though it’s been a while since I’ve seen the details)
-XT
As far as naval power goes, the United States is in first place. The next biggest naval power is the United Kingdom in fourth place.
I rather thought the blatant invasion of Kuwait demonstrate the Iraqi threat to everyone’s satisfaction back then, at least decision makers.