# military strength of countries **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 17, 2001, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275 "2001-09-17T23:13:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![kflanaga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/74df32/32.png) [@kflanaga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kflanaga)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/1 "2001-09-17T23:13:49Z")
Which countries have the most formidible military forces. In other words who would you (as a country) LEAST like to go to war with? ---
**Author:** ![Trucido](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea5d25/32.png) [@Trucido](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trucido)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/2 "2001-09-17T23:29:21Z")
Military strength are entirely relative, and judging strength is a very complex equation. You must take into account morale, quality of troops, quality of equipment, logistical support, leadership, and a host of other factors that won’t become evident until combat is actually joined. In terms of the sort of far-reaching, take-to-the-enemy militaries, there aren’t any besides the United States, and very few have really existed throughout history. Historically, the Soviets to some extent, further back than that the British and the French. In terms of home defense strength, and the ability to threaten close neighbors, the Chinese come first to mind, with the Russians, Indians, and Pakistanis included. The Japanese have a small but professional force that would defend their nation quite handily, as do the Israelis. Modern militaries with limited long-range deployment capabilities include the French, British, Germans, Italians. The Scandinavian nations also have modern professional forces available for self-defence, as do the Swiss, to an extent. Besides those nations, though, advanced military hardware starts to become rare. I do not mean to say that small nations cannot mount a defense, but they have little in the way of jet aircraft and main battle tanks. The long and short of it is, though, that war is always a messy business, and judging opponents well is a skill almost completely absent from history. You could whip the tar out of a space-age fighting force in three weeks, or be bogged down three years burning huts and blasting sand, or vice versa. Military strength only becomes apparent in hindsight, especially with leadership and morale factors. ---
**Author:** ![Arjuna34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Arjuna34](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arjuna34)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2001, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/3 "2001-09-17T23:35:11Z")
For a good book-length treatment of the question, try [_How to Make War : A Comprehensive Guide to Modern Warfare for the Post-Cold War Era_](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0688121578/qid=1000769537/sr=2-4/ref=aps_sr_b_2_1/102-4059284-6748157) by James Dunnigan. In addition to all the points raised by **Trucido** , you must also take into account the ultimate goal of each side. Are you trying to take over the other country (as in WW II), or just stop them from doing something (as in Desert Storm, Vietnam, etc.) … Arjuna34 ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/4 "2001-09-18T02:49:38Z")
**Trucido** ’s comments made me think of this. A really handy piece of equipment if you want to go to a war somewhere removed from your own locale would be an aircraft carrier. As far as I can tell, these are the only countries that operate carriers (doesn’t include helicopter ships or seaplane tenders): Brazil China - building France India Italy Russia Spain Thailand U. K. U. S. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/5 "2001-09-18T04:30:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kflanaga \*In other words who would you (as a country) LEAST like to go to war with? \*\* IMHO (if country = culture), that would be the Turks. (this does not leave me uneasy at our present prospect with their cousins the Afghans: England found them impossible to defeat, but very easy to buy. We can win this war if we’re smart enough to fight it with silver bullets) ---
**Author:** ![Andy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aeb1de/32.png) [@Andy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/6 "2001-09-18T07:25:03Z")
Worth noting that the UK carriers are mini carriers, so conventional fixed wing aircraft can’t take off from them, only those which have some VTOL/short take off capability. Illustrious, Invincible and Ark Royal are the ones I remember. I don’t know if all are active currently. ---
**Author:** ![LinoleumInnocence](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f9ae1b/32.png) [@LinoleumInnocence](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinoleumInnocence)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/7 "2001-09-18T10:31:03Z")
Carriers are over rated. Not all the aircraft they carry are fighters. They also carry AWACs, Orions, COD’s. That means that the number of aircraft it carries is reduced. Then you have to take into account the necessity to have a CAP (combat air patrol) plus planes in reserve to protect the carrier. Once you have done that you will find that the striking ability of your carrier is significantly reduced. In addition a carrier has almost no ability to defend itself, so it has to have a bevy of destroyers and frigates to do that job for them. Then add a couple of attack subs to sanitise the area of enemy subs and you have a hell of a lot of fire power sitting out there defending and supporting a floating target. A carrier isn’t very manouvourable and doesn’t have much in the way of defenses so if missiles get through the destroyer/frigate screens then they are screwed. In naval exercises an Australian diesel sub got close enough to take pics of the carriers hull. Had that been war the carrier would be dead or injured. Either way it would not be able to conduct flight ops and it would be usless. Li ---
**Author:** ![LinoleumInnocence](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f9ae1b/32.png) [@LinoleumInnocence](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinoleumInnocence)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/8 "2001-09-18T10:35:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Andy \* > \*\*Worth noting that the UK carriers are mini carriers, so conventional fixed wing aircraft can’t take off from them, only those which have some VTOL/short take off capability. Illustrious, Invincible and Ark Royal are the ones I remember. I don’t know if all are active currently. \*\* Last I heard was that Ark Royal was in refit with the intention of decommissioning Invincible when Arc Royal comes out of overhaul. And they are the only three carriers. Li ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/9 "2001-09-18T11:39:46Z")
The _Invincible_-class ships were originally classified in the UK as through-deck ASW cruisers, not carriers. I believe this was due to potential political fall-out over the construction of ‘aircraft carriers’. The Royal Navy is currently developing a 50,000-ton replacement, known as the CV (F) project or the Future Aircraft Carrier (CVS) (009). The first vessel is due to be commissioned in 2012 and a second in 2015. From the little information available, it looks as though it’s intended to carry a 50-strong air group of RN or RAF Eurofighters (I think these may be called Typhoons in British service, but don’t quote me on that), early warning aircraft and ASW helicopters. ---
**Author:** ![Andy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/aeb1de/32.png) [@Andy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/10 "2001-09-18T12:19:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by LinoleumInnocence \* > Carriers are over rated. Yeah, but surely it’s better than sitting at home twiddling your thumbs and complaining about a lack of local bases! > [@](#): > > In addition a carrier has almost no ability to defend itself, so it has to have a bevy of destroyers and frigates to do that job for them. Was any carrier designed to be self sufficient? > [@](#): > > A carrier isn’t very manouvourable… Have you ever seen footage of a BIG carrier turning through 90 degrees to face a potential threat head on (ie minimise its profile in that direction)? I’m sure someone with a little more maritime knowledge could fill in the details, but it was damn fast…it seemed improbably quick for such a huge vessel. IMO carriers are not at all over rated as long as you appreciate the function they were intended to perform. They still have a significant role to play in modern combat…for now at least. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/11 "2001-09-18T12:35:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by LinoleumInnocence \* > \*\*Carriers are over rated. Not all the aircraft they carry are fighters. They also carry AWACs, Orions, COD’s. That means that the number of aircraft it carries is reduced. Then you have to take into account the necessity to have a CAP (combat air patrol) plus planes in reserve to protect the carrier. > > Once you have done that you will find that the striking ability of your carrier is significantly reduced.\*\* It’s still a sizable enough force to do a lot of damage to naval or land targets within a large distance. Carriers project conventional force further and with more versatility than any other naval vessel. > [@](#): > > **In addition a carrier has almost no ability to defend itself, so it has to have a bevy of destroyers and frigates to do that job for them. Then add a couple of attack subs to sanitise the area of enemy subs and you have a hell of a lot of fire power sitting out there defending and supporting a floating target.** Yes. But a carrier projects enough force to make that defensive overhead worthwhile. > [@](#): > > **A carrier isn’t very manouvourable and doesn’t have much in the way of defenses so if missiles get through the destroyer/frigate screens then they are screwed.** Fire enough missiles and any vessel is toast. Again, it comes down to a balance between how much firepower a carrier gives you and how much defense it requires. Sure, carriers are vulnerable. But no other surface vessel packs the same amount of punch at the same ranges with the same versatility. Aircraft can be re-armed and re-used against different targets and are much more flexible in use than SSMs. Submarines are superb against naval targets, but lack the same quality against land targets (cruise missiles being fairly limited in the range of missions they can fulfil). ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-strength-of-countries/82275/12 "2001-09-20T03:49:30Z")
I’d gather then that carriers, while begging _much_ overhead, are still quite the piece to have if you’re going to fight a “conventional” (that’s a dynamic adjective) war a hemisphere removed from your own territory? I’m sure their utility has included projection of power alone (the only real reason I can think of for Argentina to have operated while they did - Brazil nowadays _may_ be a different case), but they _do_ give you a mobile airbase in the region when needed.