Military Power In The World

Status
Not open for further replies.
Inventory

Hi EagleHammer
When to the site check out one thing here below http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_aircraft.asp

I happened to be looking for how many operational Mirage 2000s Peru still has and didn't see Peru even on the list. The list show Nepal having 18 aircraft but leaves out a country with more then 200 aircraft. The other problem I have with is the data is listed from 2004 you could find other sites which have newer data and give a little more detail. The site could be useful I just question the inventory page right off the bat.

Hope that helps a little
icon7.gif
 
NOTE: Nuclear weapons, past and current military experience, unit training and equipment quality are not taken into account.
Click to expand...

That pretty much says it all right there. On paper Russia's military looks like it has actually improved since 1991, but the paper doesn't mention that only 1/3 of the equipment listed has been maintained in a state of combat readiness. Iraq, ahead of Venezuela and Libya? At least those two nations are independent nations with militaries maintained by their own government. Spain's ahead of Pakistan? (Yet managed to fight number four on the list to a stand still five times) Great Britain is tenth even though their Navy could easily trump numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 on this list? On a planet that's surface is 2/3's water, one could argue that a Navy is pretty important. Argentina ahead of Sweden, Israel and and Taiwan? There's a frickin random thrown in there, has Argentina rebuilt since getting trumped by the United Kingdom in 1982? Why does this list refer to the United Kingdom as Great Britain? In the seventh grade science fair a kid was considered incorrect because he said Great Britain instead of the United Kingdom. This list is at best incomplete and inaccurate, the UK should be number two or three, unlike China they actually have the ability to project their power beyond their borders, China may have a large army, but their Navy can't even cross the 112 miles from China to Taiwan. Definitely a lot more work needed here.
 
Aust is just behind Pakistan and well ahead of Israel. Interesting.

As for military expenditure we spend almost double what Canada does and are just under India's budget. Although I think we have eclipsed their spending this year.
 
EagleHammer, if it makes you feel any better, US power is declining currently and there isn't any real suggestion to say there will be a reversal in this trend. It may be a long time before the US can actually find itself winning an armed conflict... it might be a long time before the US military and intelligence agencies will be granted the legal backing to do their jobs. By then it might be too late.
Who gives a crap if you've got the most accurate sniper rifle assigned to the best sniper in the world under your command if it is illegal to use him in any meaningful manner?
 
the_13th_redneck said:
EagleHammer, if it makes you feel any better, US power is declining currently and there isn't any real suggestion to say there will be a reversal in this trend. It may be a long time before the US can actually find itself winning an armed conflict... it might be a long time before the US military and intelligence agencies will be granted the legal backing to do their jobs. By then it might be too late.
Who gives a crap if you've got the most accurate sniper rifle assigned to the best sniper in the world under your command if it is illegal to use him in any meaningful manner?
Click to expand...

Throwin the b******t flag here. Let's see some evidence for this claim. The United States has the numbers of India and China in terms of military size and technology equal to or superior to that of Western Europe and Russia. Our military expenditure is 50% of the world's total military expenditures. Our troops have been tested in battle, have an excellent logistical support system, and a single US Navy aircraft carrier holds more air power than most other countries can hope to match. I guess one could argue that we are behind Lithuania in the use of WWII era destroyers or piston engine fighter airplanes and that could be a sign of our imminent demise. The world's largest Navy and Air Force apparently isn't enough because China and India could put more (under trained) boots on the ground. Neither country can really move their Army over a body of water greater than 27ft in width but they still have more men in uniform, no body armor or weapon, but a uniform.
 
I have never questioned that the US military is the most powerful in the world. This is a fact. But the political will of the country is simply not strong enough to win any war whatsoever. I would argue that the political will of the US and the complexities of the laws which govern what this military can do overseas is incredible considering the level of difficulty the conflict in the middle east.
Consider these:
- 5 US soldiers dying in a day in Iraq makes headlines. Al Qaeda and other militants over there don't care how many they lose as long as they have volunteers coming in, and there doesn't seem to be a shortage.
- Less than 4000 American servicemen have died in Iraq in a conflict that is now over 4 years old. This is being considered unacceptable. 4000 in 4 years is historically a very low death rate.
- America can't stand a war that isn't over in time for monday night football. (okay so I exaggerate a bit)
- The insurgency in Iraq is popular throughout the Muslim world.
- The war effort in Iraq is unpopular in the US.
You see, I don't question the military might of the US. In any conventional fight of beat 'em up, the US would trump any country in the world, twice over perhaps. But the issue is political. Politically the US cannot eliminate its most important enemies with extreme prejudice, it cannot shoot or conduct operations against mosques where all kinds of nasty stuff is stored. On the home front, mosques that teach extremist teachings are difficult to monitor because it would be "racist."
You tell me how we're supposed to win.

Let me give you a situation very much like it.
I'm standing guard at a guard post. Cars come in and out and so do people. I have no authority to stop or question anyone coming in unless they look "dangerous." I have an automatic rifle but I'm only outfitted with blanks. I am trained in various forms of hand to hand combat but I am forbidden under any circumstance other than in self defense to hit anyone... and then of course not even that if that person is a higher ranking NCO or officer. There is no gate. They don't think it looks very good and that it would just cause traffic jams. No bomb detection equipment is issued, although we have a few of those in storage. There is no bayonet, though even if there were any, we'd be forbidden to use them.
Two drunk and screaming senior NCOs run through causing mayhem.
I think you get the picture.
 
Last edited:
How do we win? We win by letting these extremist mosques spout their BS for all the world to hear. We win by not compromising on our beliefs of freedom, equality, democracy, etc. We win by not lowering ourselves to the level of our enemies. We win by going on with our day to day lives without giving them any undo attention. In the case of militant Islamic radical groups ignoring the problem will make it go away. By not giving them any attention they are unable to get their message out and can not bring in new members, their leaders die off and we never hear from them again.

The difference between Iraq and say... World War II is that in WWII we were actually threatened and had a need to act, Iraq doesn't threaten the US and Al Qaeda threatens the safety and security of Americans, not America. Lacking the will to endlessly fight a war that can't be won by military means against an enemy that poses no threat to America doesn't make us weak, it makes us responsible. Since apparently reversing fifty years of foreign policy that turned us into the bad guys and actually trying to overthrow brutal dictators as opposed to prop them up has only made things worse.
 
That had so much rhetoric it's starting to drip.
Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away. That worked wonderfully back in the 90's didn't it? The existence of America and the West itself is enough to keep these people who will do all kinds of harm in power.
Not being able to fight and win does make us weak. The next time you try to use "presence" as a deterrent, it won't work. You'll have to fight yet again, lose, then come back with the enemy with yet another great recruiting tool.
I think the hurt dollar, the rising oil costs (not necessarily all because of the scarcity of oil) and what Muslim extremists are doing in the UK does suggest that Al Qaeda has the capacity to not only harm Americans but America itself. It will lose all its influence abroad wherever extreme Islam has control.
There's been a slight change since the 70s. Back then, terrorists didn't want a whole lot of people dead. They wanted publicity. But now it seems they want not only publicity but also a whole lot of people dead. America is now the target, not simply the audience. And you can forget about "not doing anything" because the press will cover all the events and show it to the world.
Do you know how doing nothing will be perceived here? It will be perceived as such: the Americans have lost the will to fight. We are now taking the fight to them. Victory shouldn't be too far away now.
That's how it is seen over here (Not America)
 
We are now taking the fight to them. Victory shouldn't be too far away now.
Click to expand...

Ah of course, the problem will go away because you've decided it should. There's no plan to deal with it and the problem is one that is centuries old, but because we've decided to act it will go away. Wars of ideology can not be won by military means. Look at Vietnam, the US won 98% of all the ground battles during the war, yet we lost because of a bunch of ****ing potheads.
 
Rossiman said:
How many potheads are we talking about here lol? I am aware we had lots of potheads in the 60's 70's... But is it true that 2/3 of the nation Where Stoners?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me, it was a pretty depressing time in American history. Hell, a majority of the members of Congress and pretty much every candidate for President has admitted to smoking marijuana at some point in their lives. Why should the people who put them in office be any different?

The odd thing about this war was the level of a person's education was directly proportional to their support for the war
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top