Santosh...many people would like you to believe that military spending is the most crucial factor in winning a war.
These people are totally wrong. They say this because they represent the interests of weapon sellers.
Besides weapons , there are many other factors such as determination and will to take risks, patriotism which drives people to take huge risks and leadership which create a massive ,united psychological confidence.
If weapons were the only factors, US would not be fighting a rag tag group of terrorists for decades and these terrorists would not be successful as they have hardly any high tech jets or missiles etc.
Believing strongly in ones principles and desire to give ones life for those beliefs is as important as having the most latest weapons. A nation of cowards who just want to make huge monetary profits can be defeated by a dedicated, strong willed patriotic nation...even if that nation has less advanced weapons. Its the guts to die for once cause ...and that's crucial factor. No guts ..no glory.
Most advanced weapons in the hands of a selfish and coward person does not lead to success. IMO.
@Ray
Its almost impossible to offend with another country and maintain hold also
look, there are few factors which are the 'deciding' in most of the wars, such as:-
1st; it would be almost impossible for US to invade any of the South American countries. even if the total strength of South American countries as whole won't be match with even half of the military strength of the US....
you can't win over a country whose civilians will first fight with invaders. you can't enter into a country and maintain hold for even short time
2nd; there can't be a war between 2 nuclear armed nations. even if India has lead of 1000 combat aircraft over the Pakistan's 300 combat aircraft, for example, it doesn't show a victory over Pakistan whose missiles can hit any part of India, similarly Pakistan's every part in on India's hit range.
for example of Kargil war 1999, Pakistan had to vacate every single inch land of India of Kargil region, but Indian military couldn't enter any part of Pakistan after getting the Kargil region back......
you can't enter into another country whose people will first revolt, military strength doesn't show victory over another country, if you have to enter in that certain region....
for example of India's victory over Pakistan, which resulted in birth of Bangladesh in 1972, which then went in control of the people of Bangladesh. Indian military had to back....
3rd;
International border can't be changed, even if you talk about small villages of Kazakhstan where military doesn't even visit, or in case of small African countries, "winning-losing" is discussed on the paper only, none of the even villages can be changed in today's world
4th;
and when we talk about winning-losing between militarizes, i would say, if you have to invade a country, it would be impossible for even super power US to win over even Vietnam type so poor country, as in 70s. but if you have to defend yourself, even Pakistan is as powerful that it may defend itself from India+China both, if it is attacked....
Defending your own border against a foreign military is too easy. and offending with another's border is extremely difficult...
.