It gave me something new to learn...Now I can accurately reassess my views on world militaries.

Hmm off the top of my head, I'd say militaries are ranked according to their manpower, technologies, intelligence, morale, global influence, mobility, training, and conscription methods to name a few.

Hmm off the top of my head, I'd say militaries are ranked according to their manpower, technologies, intelligence, morale, global influence, mobility, training, and conscription methods to name a few.

Manpower doesn't mean squat. Big doesn't equal better.

Originally Posted by AussieNick

Manpower doesn't mean squat. Big doesn't equal better.

Then who will man the artillery? Who will pilot the jet fighters? Who will hold the territories? Machines? Ok then, who will control, pilot, and repair those machines? I agree that having millions of soldiers will not win a war straight up, but having a reasonable force with backup is very necessary.

Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon

Hmm off the top of my head, I'd say militaries are ranked according to their manpower, technologies, intelligence, morale, global influence, mobility, training, and conscription methods to name a few.

I'd rank technology first. It only takes two keys to unlock an ICBM silo after the President gives the code.

The best way to judge is by the wars they have won, nothing else really matters. If lose then you and every one else in country can be deep in the brown stuff, and it ain't chocolate.

How do you take into account civil wars or revolutions, where doctrine can change drastically from the old regime to the new one? Take China for example, and their Great Leap Forward, or the Russian Bolsheviks. If the Tsar had prevailed, what would the militaries of today be like without the Cold War?

edit: I agree, history is a significant factor as well; not just wars won, but interactions with other nations, lessons learned, experience, etc.

Originally Posted by Missileer

I'd rank technology first. It only takes two keys to unlock an ICBM silo after the President gives the code.

What about MAD? I think the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan somewhat proves that advanced technology doesn't necessarily mean problems solved. Even the Israelis high military command recently (like yesterday) admitted that even with their missile strikes from the air and sea might not be enough to stop/destroy Hizbollah, and they be considering a ground invasion. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for technology too (I like toys....), but I think intelligence would be ranked first in my book.

Not a single factor should be left out, though intelligence is not part of the military.

Some one mentioned casualty rates as an indicator, well what would China make of this. In Korea they just poured people into the fray many troops ran out bullets but still they came and just swamped the defenders