Objective Military comparison/analysis

[ArneHD]

I was browsing forum games when I noticed that amadeus had started a new forum game, this time about todays world. He included military rakings for each nation.

This got me wondering about whether there is an objective military comparison / analysis on the web today, or a program, or book for that matter, that preferably dealt with both technological level, leadership, and raw numbers.

Do anyone here know of such a source?

 

[RedRalph]

I was browsing forum games when I noticed that amadeus had started a new forum game, this time about todays world. He included military rakings for each nation.

This got me wondering about whether there is an objective military comparison / analysis on the web today, or a program, or book for that matter, that preferably dealt with both technological level, leadership, and raw numbers.

Do anyone here know of such a source?

I think somethign like this is always going to be subjective. No one realistically would doubt US to be top dog for the moment, but after that its gets confusing. FWIW, The americans consider Russia to be clearly no. 2, I'll find you that link but its not a analysis or anthign.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3728855

 

[red_elk]

Objective comparison is impossible. Many other lists you can easily find in google, for example http://www.globalfirepower.com/

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Moved to OT.

 

[Elrohir]

Nuclear weapons make this particularly iffy.

I mean, Russia still has, to the best of my knowledge, the world's largest nuclear arsenal. But by any real measure, the US is the stronger nation. China, though, has the world's largest army - but only a couple hundred nukes, and their army isn't nearly as well equipped as the American army. So even accepting that the US deserves the top spot, do we give China #2, or Russia?

A lot of this is subjective, based on how you think about how nuclear weapons, power projection, and other key concepts and areas weigh in on determining how powerful a nation's military is. Those basic numbers, though, can generally be found pretty easily on the internet.

 

[Fetus4188]

IIRC, while Russia has more warheads the US has more "deliverable" warheads and missiles. But that argument is moot because each has enough to destroy the world many times over, so they are effectively equal.

I'm not sure I would consider China to be #2 or maybe even #3 because they lack a respectable navy and air force. Sure, they have the largest army and because of that would likely be able to defeat any army that attempted a land war against them in Asia. In modern warfare, however, naval and aerial dominance is almost a necessity and in these fields technology and expertise are more important than numbers.

 

[chad187]

Nuclear weapons make this particularly iffy.

I mean, Russia still has, to the best of my knowledge, the world's largest nuclear arsenal. But by any real measure, the US is the stronger nation. China, though, has the world's largest army - but only a couple hundred nukes, and their army isn't nearly as well equipped as the American army. So even accepting that the US deserves the top spot, do we give China #2, or Russia?

A lot of this is subjective, based on how you think about how nuclear weapons, power projection, and other key concepts and areas weigh in on determining how powerful a nation's military is. Those basic numbers, though, can generally be found pretty easily on the internet.

China could easily make more nukes they just feel that they dont need a big arsenal.

 

[GinandTonic]

As recent threads have discussed it is really a horses for courses question.

Most countries have militaries designed around the prospective requirements they expect of them. Thus one country needs large land forces, another power projection etc etc.

 

[scy12]

The way i would make a list goes somehow like this :
Power projection has much to do with the Navy and airforce of a country and it's ability to be an instrument of an invasion of being used for attacking enemy ground. And the general efficiency of an army on example A)supply lines B) not being outdated for instace.I consider it a step up more important than just having a large inefficient army. Regarding grading(a - is half a cross +)

Usa...................army..+++...power projection..+++
Britain/France.....army..++.....power projection..++-
Russia/China.......army..+++...power projection..+
Canada/Australia.army..+-.....power projection..++
India,Pakistan.....army..++-...power projection..+
Israel,Turkey......army..++.....power projection..+




In an actual war on German territory or generally in Europe i believe Germany has the capability to have the best ground army in Europe excluding Russia.

 

[Elrohir]

China could easily make more nukes they just feel that they dont need a big arsenal.

Which is great - but in a shooting war, there are no timeouts while you build more nukes.

 

[dosed150]

at one point didnt the usa have more nukes than russia has now, what happened to all of them, were they actually destroyed or are they still around somewhere disassembled

 

[Chazumi]

Nuclear weapons make this particularly iffy.

I mean, Russia still has, to the best of my knowledge, the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

After a certain amount of ICBM's (not tactical nukes, those need to be transported without remote device) the country that owns these becomes eternal. 1,000 ICBMS is the same as 100,000 ICBMS in my opinion. Until there is a fool-proof way of deflecting these weapons of mass destruction, once a nation obtains this ability they should sit easy, until we develop a defensive capability or a weapon that is more devastating and a hundred times more faster acting. I think (IMO) Irans position on their nuke program. "It's for energy, but if we can successfuly make 1,000 of these, who are you to stop us?". Think about it.

 

[Elrohir]

After a certain amount of ICBM's (not tactical nukes, those need to be transported without remote device) the country that owns these becomes eternal. 1,000 ICBMS is the same as 100,000 ICBMS in my opinion. Until there is a fool-proof way of deflecting these weapons of mass destruction, once a nation obtains this ability they should sit easy, until we develop a defensive capability or a weapon that is more devastating and a hundred times more faster acting. I think (IMO) Irans position on their nuke program. "It's for energy, but if we can successfuly make 1,000 of these, who are you to stop us?". Think about it.

It depends, to a large extent on whether you strike first or not. The more weapons you have, the more likely that even if you're attacked first, you'll retain enough nukes to destroy the enemy, which gives you increased deterrent.

 

[Chazumi]

It depends, to a large extent on whether you strike first or not. The more weapons you have, the more likely that even if you're attacked first, you'll retain enough nukes to destroy the enemy, which gives you increased deterrent.

Well, perhaps if you spent your entire countries budget on just the nukes you might not have the surveilance capabilities of knowing right away if you were hit by a nuke. In the case of US vs. Russia, whether either one of us launched first, the other would launch their arsenal before the first nuke even touched the atmosphere of the others country. Mutual Destruction. So, I am saying this makes the country "eternal" in the sense that it was the last, but also "eternal" meaning they either will be eternal (not counting internal strife disrupting this) or "last" of the earth.

 

[Elrohir]

Well, perhaps if you spent your entire countries budget on just the nukes you might not have the surveilance capabilities of knowing right away if you were hit by a nuke. In the case of US vs. Russia, whether either one of us launched first, the other would launch their arsenal before the first nuke even touched the atmosphere of the others country. Mutual Destruction. So, I am saying this makes the country "eternal" in the sense that it was the last, but also "eternal" meaning they either will be eternal (not counting internal strife disrupting this) or "last" of the earth.

But you aren't taking into account things like SLBM's - as things stand, it's rather probable that the US, for instance, actually could take out most, if not all of China's nuclear capability using a nuclear first strike launched from submarines. (I can find the FAS report that looked at that scenario, if you like) The main reason for that is that China only has about 200 nukes capable of hitting the US - if they had 2,000, including some further west instead of so bunched in the Northeast, it'd be pretty much impossible for us to do.

Now, we're not going to nuke China. But in theory, anyway, this stuff matters. And I thought that was a large part of what we're doing here.

 

[Chazumi]

But you aren't taking into account things like SLBM's - as things stand, it's rather probable that the US, for instance, actually could take out most, if not all of China's nuclear capability using a nuclear first strike launched from submarines. (I can find the FAS report that looked at that scenario, if you like) The main reason for that is that China only has about 200 nukes capable of hitting the US - if they had 2,000, including some further west instead of so bunched in the Northeast, it'd be pretty much impossible for us to do.

Now, we're not going to nuke China. But in theory, anyway, this stuff matters. And I thought that was a large part of what we're doing here.

Well your info is news to me. And trust me I don't discount it, I find it interesting I have never heard about this.

Though without this info my opinion would be: Even if only 10 of 200 nukes (depending on kilotonage) hit the US, they would most likely be in strategic locations (or maybe not) they would do quite a number on us. Perhaps other nations who only "sort-of" supported us would join in against us? I always base my USA defensive capabilities off my dad's sayings: "Even if the entire world went to war against us we would still win, we probably would all die, but we would still win."

 

[Elrohir]

Well your info is news to me. And trust me I don't discount it, I find it interesting I have never heard about this.

Though without this info my opinion would be: Even if only 10 of 200 nukes (depending on kilotonage) hit the US, they would most likely be in strategic locations (or maybe not) they would do quite a number on us. Perhaps other nations who only "sort-of" supported us would join in against us? I always base my USA defensive capabilities off my dad's sayings: "Even if the entire world went to war against us we would still win, we probably would all die, but we would still win."

Well, most of this isn't well known because for years and years, the only real countries people envisioned having a nuclear exchange were the US and USSR. And there, it'd be pretty much impossible for the US to pull off a first strike, without leaving enough Soviet nukes left to destroy the US. The Soviet's just have so many nukes, so many places, and in such hardened bunkers that too many would survive. China, though, doesn't - they're betting that the US or Russia won't stab them in the back. And the thing is, they're right. I'm not really criticizing the Chinese strategy, I'm just commenting on it.

Depends on what you're looking at. "Even" 10 nukes getting through, though, would be an unacceptable risk.

 

[Chazumi]

Depends on what you're looking at. "Even" 10 nukes getting through, though, would be an unacceptable risk.

Exactly. 10 of thousands is a minute percentage. The odds of these NOT getting through is minute. It's like saying "My country's strongest boxer can deliver 1,000 punches but can only take 10." After your country's "strongest boxer" has reached a certain amount of blows per round, they become immune. If they don't win, we all lose.

Imagine the effects of the US at war with any country really: Russia, China, India, Iran, whatever. Say we had 100,000 troops deployed to one of these areas or they were defending from an invasion of one of these countries, and even one nuclear weapon went off during the interim of this? Imagine the outrage, the morale of the troops, not to mention the losses. How would we retalliate? And once we launched 2 nukes to their 1? Their retaliation? Exactly.

 

[Winner]

I was browsing forum games when I noticed that amadeus had started a new forum game, this time about todays world. He included military rakings for each nation.

This got me wondering about whether there is an objective military comparison / analysis on the web today, or a program, or book for that matter, that preferably dealt with both technological level, leadership, and raw numbers.

Do anyone here know of such a source?

I think you have to do it yourself. The statistical data and information are usually available, the problem is what method you choose.

For example, you may say that China has the biggest army, so does it mean it's the number 1 in your military ranking? Or are you more interested in the nuclear firepower, which would put Russia on the top? And should European countries be treated separately, or as a bloc? What about power projection?

I don't think you can do just one totally objective ranking for all situations.

 

[sourboy]

Objective comparison is impossible. Many other lists you can easily find in google, for example http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Excellent link!

America is almost identical to the major EU members in all branches.
India and China are pretty equal, except in Armor (China).
Israel is almost equal to Iran/Syria/Lebanon.