As someone living in China, I’d ask you to re-think your hopes.
Actually, saudad mentioned Argentina, along with a bunch of other countries, because he thought it might rank:
It was next mentioned by Vinnie Virginslayer, apparently for the express purpose of pointing out that it couldn’t really be considered powerful:
So… I guess you were wrong in thinking that anyone had said Argentina was mentioned “as a (in military terms) powerfull country”. Since the OP asked for a ranking of nations on the power scale, your anecdotes at best echo Vinnie’s remark and at worst are completely irrelevant.
Originally posted by Estilicon:
First off, let me say that the way this is turning out is a bit disheartening. Let’s pretend, for a moment, that your words above are accurate to the letter. How do they justify your remarks about the “barbaric” amount of money America spends on its military, or that its “tin soldiers” couldn’t protect the Pentagon? Don’t spend too much time trying to puzzle that out, because luckily they aren’t accurate. All they really are are phenocrysts of unrelated fact set in a matrix of what appears to be anti-American sentiment. A nice porphry, to be sure, but not the gem of truth you pass it off to be. Oh, I nearly forgot to mention the intruding crystals of opinion passing themselves off as fact; this is a particularly nice one:
And by the way, e.e., proper names are usually capitalized.
**
Considering that the people with the bio weapons seem to be using them now, I doubt a piece of paper signed by a bunch of international stuffed shirts would have stopped them.
Or to shave their faces, considering that’s what most people with razors do with them.
As for your ignorant slap at our Constitution, it only shows how seriously you are lacking in credibility.
This board is for fighting ignorance, not spreading it. Of course, that’s not the only thing your posts have been spreading, but never mind that.
Flezz, flezz and more flezz.
Yeah, that’s in the thirty-fifth amendment. :rolleyes: And don’t call me Shirley.
I was just looking at a chart of world military expenditures and inventories over at the Center for Defense Information.
Japan has a LARGE army. 240,000 troops. And Japan is currently spending about the same as Russia, which would make them 2 and 3 in the world in military spending.
North Korea is interesting. NK has an army almost as big as the U.S.'s, 3400 heavy tanks, 1140 aircraft. But they are only spending $5 billion a year, which can’t be enough to even maintain all that equipment. It looks like it once had a very powerful Soviet-supplied military, but it is gradually falling into disrepair.
To: Firx, Spoonbender, Michael Ellis (and whoever else it may concern)
RE: Estilicon
DNFTT (Do Not Feed The Troll)
His (her?) arguments are just too silly to even be worth rebutting. By his/her arguments it would follow that police are worthless too so why spend money on them?
Having nuclear weapons are worthless if your enemies don’t think you will use them. It reminds me of one of the final scenes in Dr. Strangelove where the Russian ambassador explains that an attack on his country will set off a doomsday weapon that will destroy most life on earth. The Americans demand to know why the hell the Russians didn’t tell anyone about this since what the hell is the point of having such a thing if it can’t be used as a deterrent? Of course, it’s a lot funnier in the movie and I recommend seeing it if you haven’t already.
It would seem that nukes today are relegated to a last line of defense. So if nation A is in danger of being overrun by nation B I think you could expect nation A to let the birds fly…what do they have to lose at that point?
IIRC an Indian politician remarked after the US whomped Saddam in the Gulf War that possessing nuclear weapons was the only thing that could theoretically stop Americans on the warpath (I’m paraphrasing here so take with a grain of salt till I dig up a cite).
For the sake of the OP I think nukes should be ruled out and only conventional forces considered.
I think you are right about the peacekeeping forces including Germans but I think they are still not allowed to send combatants…just support personnel (mechanics, doctors, truck drivers, etc.).
The Japanese have a pretty credible military and only really lacks in serious force-projection power. Frankly, only the US can really do the force-projection dance these days (at least in anywhere in the world terms). Still, the difference between a ‘self-defense’ force and an ‘offensive’ force is just one of semantics and will.
I just in further examples of countries with a military of some importance…maybe not a “military powers”.
Anyway, I wish I thought of Turkey. I have heard that Turkish troops were very tough in Korea (am I correct there?).
I mentioned Brazil, a country I have a great deal of interest in, because while it isn’t really a military power, it may or may not have nuclear capabilities. It also produces a fair number of light armaments used in the developing world, even some tanks and aircraft.
Chile and Argentina also have armaments industies, and some military capabilities (ask the Croats). So I thought of them as militarily active.
Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole:
This was essentially the point I was trying to get at. As long as nation B wasn’t planning on massacring the civilians in nation A, nation A might have lots to lose. Let’s shift to a real world example for a minute, namely Iraq vs. Kuwait. If Kuwait had posessed nuclear weapons at the time, and had used them against the invading Iraqis or against, say, Baghdad, would the international community have responded in the way they did? I would think that Kuwait would have been in a much worse position, with little or no hope of international aid, although opinions may vary.
So I think that nuclear capability should not necessarily rank a country as militarily powerful, and I agree that they should be discounted in this discussion.
Oh, and by the way, good advice about Estilicon.
It has been mentioned, but China is the country to watch. With a huge population and vast resources, it will give the US a tough run for their money if the free market fully opens up there and it develops to its fullest potential. Thankfully, China realizes the value of the dollar, and would be unlikely to take us out because we are such a good trading partner. I also think (at least hope) that the US has been hiding a lot of military expenditure ($200 toilet seat example) but then again, look at the huge lack of intelligence and “human capital” in the military that allowed Sept 11th.
Hey, we were there too, and did a lot of the ground fighting (the UK that is). Getting bombed by you guys too IIRC! 
While we cannot field the number you can, as far as I can understand, the UK has a worldwide strike capability.
Another factor to be considered is the relative value of the armies. Iraq may have had a HUGE army before the Gulf War, but most of it was untrained and pretty much useless for anything other than cannon fodder. The US has a large army, but I understand that (this may be completely inaccurate, and I welcome correction) the majority of the infantry is not all that highly trained. The UK has only quite a small army numbers wise but most of it is highly trained and I am led to believe that on an individual basic trooper level is as good as, if not better, than some countries ‘crack’ troops.
I prepare myself for A LOT of criticism now
yes the UK has a world wide strike ability in 1982 we flew bombers (vulcans) from ascention island about 4000 miles away to bomb port stanley in operation black buck
comparable to your B-2 raids in distance
They did have combat units in the Kosovo/Serbia campaign – Luftwaffe fighters – and in the subsequent peacekeeping ops – combat engineers, infantry, some armor – at one point even a German General was commanding. But those operations were under the aegis of NATO, which does allow for such Bundeswehr deployment.
Yes and no.
Britain doesn’t have anything bigger than Tornados for ground attack these days, which I doubt have the range of a B-2. Also, remember that Operation Black Buck involved 13 Victor tankers on a continuous refuelling cycle just to get those two Vulcans to Argentina.
Britain has a decent, and increasingly airmobile, army (the recent review has again emphasised the importance of light rapid reaction forces with hefty air support), but the RAF isn’t strong enough to project massive force overseas, and the RN doesn’t have the sealift capability that the US does.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TheeGrumpy *
**
Actually, TheeGrumpy, China has had radical islamic terrorist attacks domestically for years. Okay, maybe not exactly comperable to what’s happened in the US. Exploding pipe bombs have been mentioned in the Chinese press. Worse stuff could easily have happened and never been reported. There have been many mass uprisings amoung the Islamic Uigher minority group in Xinjiang Province, which just happens to border Afganistan and Pakistan.
China doesn’t have much power to project much beyond her borders, especially over the Pacific. China’s military may be large but the quality overall is pretty low. You only have to take one look at a 100 pound dripping wet kid in a one size fits all sack like uniform wearing high heeled plastic sandles and holding hands with his brothers in arms to not take them very seriously. that said, I’ve also seen combat troops near the Viet Nam border and coming out of Tibet, and they looked like serious combat troops.
First of all excuse me. In fact my apologies are extended to all, the fact is english is no my strong. After all is difficult for a person with a complete different language to understand it. But firx, I wonder how well you do in portuguese, italian or spanish?
Second I am entitled to a sense of humour, it is true that no constitution that I have read says it but you all know that what is not prohibited by law (the use razors) is permitted.
Third I am also entitled to an opinion (which constitutions often expressaly grant) When I said that you still have a cold war mentality (big ships, big guns, incredible amount of money use for weapons which you happen to export worldwide) I was giving an opinion not a fact. I am not an expert in international relationships but I think that since the end of the cold war the only thing you have done is pushing people around. I also think your president is an idiot, I will also extend this to all your goverment. It is true that the world won’t be fixed by papers (international treaties) but they are usually a great place to start.
Fourth what have you done since the attack? You have been bombing a country wich has already been bombed for 23 years. What will you achieve? nothing, perhaps alienating even more the muslims population in that part of the world (mid east) Why are you doing that? You have been hurt, and humilated and now you want to retaliate. Don’t speak of democracy, justice, etc. It was a revenge against iliterate people that don’t even know where is New York and that can’t believe such big buildings can be build.
Fifth I shouldn’t even waste my time. The fact is I do not hate america, sometimes your policy of “do what I tell you to not what I do” is bothering but of course we have a lot to thank you (for giving one example, the destruction of nazism). I will also add (I know you won’t believe me) that I have a many americans friends. All this I said because I got the impression that you thought I hate the United States.
Well, firstly Nazism still exists ( I am guessing that you meant the Nazis as a group rather than the way of thinking tho) and secondly, it wasn’t just America! We were there too in significant numbers. As was Russia…
Please, let the troll die. He no is worth very much or all.
As to the OP, it begs the question. “How” indeed? I’d wager that if we were teleported to the empty planes of Ffranx, on a tabletop stretching into infinity, China’s military–A Million Guys With Rifles[sup]TM[/sup]–would have a shot against the US. But of course, the US military is not designed for combat on a pool table.
Every country designs a military for their own specific purposes. For example, Korea has no significant power-projection ability because their threat lies 40 miles from the capital. So their resources are spent on ground troops. Taiwan’s threat comes over water, so they spend cash on planes and ships (and dream of SDI). And the US, facing little risk of invasion, builds a force oriented towards a great road game.
Or to put it another way: could China invade and occupy Afghanistan? Probably. Could the US (imagining we had sea or even land access)? Probably not, with our current military. Our military is not designed with invasion and occupation in mind. China’s is. But if they want to try to take island X, halfway across the Pacific, we’d smoke them.
Having said all that, I’ll say that Japan is very underrated militarily. Probably top 5. They have lots of high-quality ships & planes. Putting together a nuke would be easy. And if an emergency arose (i.e. PRC invades Taiwan), I think they could get that constitution amended if they wanted to.
This is my very first post on this board and I’m sorry that I have to introduce myself by being negative, but in a post by Whack-a-Mole I found a statement that needs some correction:
“Germany and Japan are prohibited by their constitutions from sending troops anywhere for any reason. Obviously their constitutions were written mostly by the allies post WWII so you can see where that came from.”
From reading this, one could come to the conclusion that the new constitution, the Grundgesetz, or Basic law in English, was forced onto Germany by the Allies (France,UK,US). This was definitely not the case.
The Basic Law was drafted by the Parliamentary Council, or Parlamentarischer Rat. The members of the Council were appointed by the Landtage (parliaments of the German states) of the states in the three western zones of occupation. After beeing ratified by a majority of the states it was promulgated on May 23, 1949. There were no complaints about allied interference from members of the Parliamentary Council that I am aware of. From a German point of view, this was very much to the credit of the Allies and added considerably to the stability of the new German state. Today, the Grundgesetz is held in high esteem in Germany and no one, except a few right wing nuts, would claim that it was written by the allies.
In its original form as published in 1949, the only reference to war in the basic law was in Article 26, which bans wars of aggression.
As there seems to be a bit of confusion regarding matters of defence and the military in Germany after World War II, I will try to provide some information. This will make my post rather long. I apologize in advance.
Until 1950, when war broke out in Korea, the Allies hat been in favor of the demilitarization of Germany. In 1950 the idea of a german contribution to the defense of western Europe was first mentioned in a resolution of foreign ministers of the three allies. In the following years, this contribution became a precondition for the repeal of the statute of occupation by the allies. The post WWII German federal armed forces, the Bundeswehr, were founded in 1955, when the Federal Republic of Germany joined NATO. The upper limit for the strength of the new German army was set to 500,000 men. The rearmament was widely opposed in Germany.
The constitutional basis of the Bundeswehr is Article 87a of the Basic Law which states that “The Federation will raise armed forces for its defence”. This Article was added to the Basic Law in 1956. In the past, the German Federal Government choose to interpret this as a ban on German military operations outside German or NATO territory. On the other hand, Article 24 states that the Federation may join a system of collective international security and that it may cede sovereign rights to such a system, and Article 25 makes international law part of German law. By the most recent decisions of the Federal Constitunional Court this means that the Bundeswehr may be go into action abroad, as long as international law is not violated.
Regarding the relative military strentgh of european countries: Here are some numbers from the Seventies (Source:Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbook of 1979, sorry to have no more recent data at hand), from left to right are listed the number of men serving in the armed forces, the amount of money spent on defence in 1978 in U.S. Dollars, the percentage of GNP spent for defence, and the amount of money spent per soldier:
France 502,800 17,518,000,000 3.6% 34,841
Germany 489,900 21,355,000,000 3.4% 43,590
UK 313,235 13,579,000,000 5.0% 43,307
Comparing these numbers, one could hardly conclude that Germany was any weaker then France or the UK. However, no one in Germany wanted to bragg about her military power for obvious historical reasons.
In contrast to the French and British armies, the Bundeswehr was totally geared towards defending Germany and its neighbouring countries in case of land warfare. Therefore, the army (Heer) was considered most important, and while the airforce (Luftwaffe) was about the same strength as those of France and the UK, the navy (Marine) was (and still is) quite small and only used for the protection of the German coasts in the North Sea and the Baltic. Because any facilities for force projection over long distances would have been useless for waging a war in Europe, none were procured.
After reunification, German defense spending decreased, mostly because of the dismal state of economy in East Germany, but also because many Germans thought that there should be some kind of peace dividend. Recently, not least due to political pressure from the US and the NATO, the Bundeswehr is being reorganized in order to improve its capabilities for out of area action in cooperation with Germanys allies, but this is quite expensive and will take some time to achieve.
The first operation of German troops outside NATO territory was in Somalia, where the Bundeswehr only provided technical and medical support to the forces of other countries. The role of German armed forces gradually changed during the wars in Yugoslavia. In Kosovo, Germany has assumed the administration of a sector, as have France, the UK and the US.
In terms of sheer size, if you have to include NBC assets, I would say:
- USA
- Russia
- China
- England
- France
But this isn’t really very debatable. Maybe we should look at potency, or war capability per amount of land or economy size. Then we have something to speculate about. No doubt both Israel and North Korea would deserve a spot on the top of such a list.
Grrr - what about Wales, Scotland and Ireland then? 