World military strength, a comparison

prohumanity

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,290
Likes
1,362
Country flag
I am not saying they are most powerful...I am only saying they have succeeded in defending their nation from entities as big and high tech as NATO.
By the way, in 1965 war when Pakistan attacked India (I was in 6th grade but I remember) Pakistan was equipped with American weapons such as Sabre jets and Patton tanks...whereas India had a small plane called "Gnat" and some old tanks....India still not only fought well but defeated American backed Pakistan. One example of how patriotic force can be a big factor in war.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
More crucially, training and the most experience in actual combat.
The Threat Perception leads to the right man machine mix and when there is the right man machine mix it leads to effective training and high morale.

Indeed, combat experience is an important input since it becomes a hands on training as there can be no better a training ground than actual combat. This is more so because the rapidly changing scenario is not dictated by any set format that can be controlled or monitored to bring out the right textbook lesson.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I am not saying they are most powerful...I am only saying they have succeeded in defending their nation from entities as big and high tech as NATO.
By the way, in 1965 war when Pakistan attacked India (I was in 6th grade but I remember) Pakistan was equipped with American weapons such as Sabre jets and Patton tanks...whereas India had a small plane called "Gnat" and some old tanks....India still not only fought well but defeated American backed Pakistan. One example of how patriotic force can be a big factor in war.
In the Battle of Asal Uttar, where about 97 Pakistani tanks were lost, the majority of them being Pattons.

Again, the Sabres were outclassed because of superior training of the IAF.

One of the reason given as to why why the Pattons were defeated was because they were too sophisticated and the Pakistanis were not trained to handle the sophistication.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
I am not saying they are most powerful...I am only saying they have succeeded in defending their nation from entities as big and high tech as NATO.

If you;re still talking about the North Korean military then I think you have to really reconsider your opinions. North Korea is able to survive until now from the Korean war is due to the protection offered by the USSR and China, during the Cold War, and later on mainly by China, post-Cold War. Without the guarantees from these powers North Korea long ago would have been overrun.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Indeed, combat experience is an important input since it becomes a hands on training as there can be no better a training ground than actual combat. This is more so because the rapidly changing scenario is not dictated by any set format that can be controlled or monitored to bring out the right textbook lesson.
It's even tempting to speculate that the reason America seems to be perpetually in low intensity wars is due to the need of their military to constantly train in actual combat. I think they learned their lessons in WW2 wherein they were initially outclassed by the Germans and the the Japanese who were both already well experienced prior to American entry to WW2.

The field of war that they are not able to simulate in small wars are on the air and on sea. Hence, the Americans make their own air war every year in Red Flag and to some degree their Navy's Top Gun, and on the sea with RIMPAC and other large multinational naval exercises. They also buy and lease weapons from other countries especially potential enemies for training.
 
Last edited:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
SIPRI - The 15 countries with the highest military expenditure in 2012

Figures for military spending calculated using purchasing power parity (PPP), ($ b., PPP)

1. United States- $682bn
2. China- $249bn
3. India- $119bn
4. Russia- $116.0bn
5. Saudi Arabia- $63.9bn
6. United Kingdom- $57.5bn
7. France- $50.7bn
8. Japan- $46.0bn
9. South Korea- $44.2bn
10. Germany- $42.8bn
11. Brazil- $34.4bn
12. Italy- $31.0bn
13. Turkey- $25.9bn
14. Canada- $18.3bn
15. Australia- $16.3bn


sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/Top%2015%20table%202012.pdf

=> a The figures for national military expenditure as a share of GDP are based on estimates for 2012 GDP
from the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) World Economic Outlook database, Oct. 2012.

b, The figures for military expenditure at PPP exchange rates are estimates based on the projected implied PPP conversion rates for each country from the IMF World Economic Outlook database, Oct. 2012. :thumb:

I dont know how link of the above main news in broke. we have the same list for the year 2011 as below.

can someone help us find the SIPRI list for the year 2013 and 2014? :coffee:

The 15 countries with the highest military expenditure in 2011 (table) — www.sipri.org
 

prohumanity

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,290
Likes
1,362
Country flag
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.
 

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
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 :wave:

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 :wave:

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...
.
 

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
Eye on future, India mulls options for nuclear-powered aircraft carrier
Aug 1, 2013

NEW DELHI: Nothing projects raw power like an aircraft carrier prowling on the high seas, capable of unleashing strike fighters against an adversary in a jiffy. A nuclear-powered carrier can make the punch even deadlier with much longer operational endurance.

With its first indigenous aircraft carrier (IAC) set to be "launched" at Cochin Shipyard on August 12, and sea trials of the first nuclear submarine INS Arihant to begin shortly after, India is now examining the possibility of having a nuclear-powered 65,000-tonne carrier in the future.

Navy vice-chief Vice Admiral RK Dhowan on Thursday said a "detailed study" was underway on the "size, type of aircraft and their launch and recovery systems, propulsion" and the like for the IAC-II project. "Yes, we are also considering nuclear propulsion. All options are being studied. No final decision has been taken," he said.

There are huge cost issues with nuclear-powered carriers, which can easily take upwards of $10 billion to build. The Royal British Navy is reverting to carriers propelled by gas turbines/diesel-electric systems from nuclear ones.

However, the US has 11 Nimitz-class "super-carriers" — each an over 94,000-tonne behemoth powered by two nuclear reactors and capable of carrying 80-90 fighters - to project power around the globe. China, too, is now looking at nuclear-powered carriers after inducting its first conventional carrier — the 65,000-tonne Liaoning — last September.

So, while Navy may want a nuclear-powered carrier, it will ultimately have to be a considered political decision. The force, however, is firm about its long-term plan to operate three carrier-battle groups (CBGs). "One carrier for each (western and eastern) seaboard and one in maintenance," said Vice Admiral Dhowan.

But, even two CBGs will be possible only by 2019. The 40,000-tonne IAC, to be christened INS Vikrant, will be ready for induction only by December 2018, as was first reported by TOI.

"Design and construction of a carrier has many challenges. Around 75% of the IAC structure has now been erected. India joins only four countries the US, Russia, the UK and France - capable of building a carrier over 40,000-tonne," he said.

The 44,570-tonne INS Vikramaditya - or the Admiral Gorshkov carrier now undergoing sea trials after a $2.33-billion refit in Russia - in turn will be ready by end-2013 instead of the original August 2008 deadline. :tup:

Vice Admiral Dhowan admitted India's solitary carrier, the 28,000-tonne INS Viraat, will soldier on till 2018 due to these long delays. The 54-year-old INS Viraat is left with just 11 Sea Harrier jump-jets to operate from its deck. The 45 MiG-29K naval fighters, being procured from Russia for over $2 billion, can operate only from Vikramaditya and IAC.

The 260-metre-long IAC, whose construction finally began in November 2006, will be able to carry 12 MiG-29Ks, eight Tejas light combat aircraft and 10 early-warning and anti-submarine helicopters on its 2.5-acre flight deck and hangars. It will have a crew of 160 officers and 1,400 sailors. Powered by four American LM2500 gas turbines, the IAC will have an endurance of around 7,500 nautical miles at a speed of 18 knots. :coffee:

Eye on future, India mulls options for nuclear-powered aircraft carrier - Times Of India
 

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
SIPRI - The 15 countries with the highest military expenditure in 2012

Figures for military spending calculated using purchasing power parity (PPP), ($ b., PPP)

1. United States- $682bn
2. China- $249bn
3. India- $119bn
4. Russia- $116.0bn
5. Saudi Arabia- $63.9bn
6. United Kingdom- $57.5bn
7. France- $50.7bn
8. Japan- $46.0bn
9. South Korea- $44.2bn
10. Germany- $42.8bn
11. Brazil- $34.4bn
12. Italy- $31.0bn
13. Turkey- $25.9bn
14. Canada- $18.3bn
15. Australia- $16.3bn


sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/Top%2015%20table%202012.pdf

=> a The figures for national military expenditure as a share of GDP are based on estimates for 2012 GDP
from the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) World Economic Outlook database, Oct. 2012.

b, The figures for military expenditure at PPP exchange rates are estimates based on the projected implied PPP conversion rates for each country from the IMF World Economic Outlook database, Oct. 2012. :thumb:
http://www.sipri.org/research/armam...ghest-military-expenditure-in-2011-table/view

http://www.sipri.org/research/armam...ghest-military-expenditure-in-2011-table/view


Trends in U.S. Military Spending

Military budgets are only one gauge of military power. A given financial commitment may be adequate or inadequate depending on the number and capability of a nation's adversaries, how well a country invests its funds, and what it seeks to accomplish, among other factors. Nevertheless, trends in military spending do reveal something about a country's capacity for coercion. Policymakers are currently debating the appropriate level of U.S. military spending given increasingly constrained budgets and the winding down of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The following charts present historical trends in U.S. military spending and analyze the forces that may drive it lower.

These charts draw on data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Both data sets include spending on overseas contingency operations as well as defense. This distinguishes them from data used in the U.S. budget, which separates defense spending from spending on overseas operations. :coffee:



In inflation-adjusted dollars, SIPRI's measure of U.S. military spending rose sharply after the terrorist attacks of 2001.

In calendar year 2012, military spending declined from $711 billion to $668 billion.


In dollar terms, this was the largest decline since 1991.

The reduction in U.S. operations in the Middle East and the sequester mean this figure is likely to fall again in 2013.



When U.S. inflation-adjusted military spending fell by one-third in the 1990s, the U.S. share of global military spending only fell by six percentage points because other countries, particularly Russia, reduced their military spending as well.

The 6 percent fall in U.S. military spending in 2012 resulted in a two percentage point fall in the global share, as military spending by the rest of the world remained essentially flat.

To see why U.S. military spending is likely to keep falling as a share of global military spending, even if the sequester does not go into effect, it helps to look at the drivers of this ratio. For any country, a change in military spending as a share of the global total can be attributed to two factors: changes in income and changes in the allocation of that income. A rising share of global military expenditure based on a rising share of global GDP (gross domestic product) is likely to be more sustainable over the long term than a rise based on a decision to spend more of GDP on defense at the expense of other priorities. The following charts distinguish between the impact of growth and the allocation of income on the U.S. share of global military spending.

From 1990 to 2000, U.S. growth roughly kept pace with global growth. So the impact of U.S. growth on the nation's share of global military spending (represented by the red bars) offset the impact of rest-of-the-world growth (represented by the purple bars). As a result, the net growth effect, shown by the blue line, was close to zero.

Over the past ten years, faster foreign growth has reduced the U.S. share of global military spending



The black line shows the U.S. share of world military spending at five-year intervals, while the bars show what drove the change during each five-year period. The blue bars show how willing the nation has been since 2000 to spend a rising share of GDP on defense. Even if one assumes this commitment holds steady in the next five years, and if one uses International Monetary Fund (IMF) growth estimates, the U.S. share of military spending is set to decline as U.S. GDP growth (represented by the red bar) is lower than that of other military powers (represented by the purple bar). :coffee:




If the United States decided to spend a smaller share of GDP on the military, the black line on the previous page would decline more sharply still. How likely is this? The following two charts show how U.S. overseas operations have been shrinking and that they are likely to continue to do so.


Overall funding for overseas contingency operations has declined by just over 50 percent since 2008 as the war in Iraq has wound down.

Funding for the two operations was as high as $187 billion in fiscal year 2008, which represents 30 percent of SIPRI's measure of U.S. military spending for that year.

War funding is projected to come to $79 billion in fiscal year 2014, but it is likely to decline thereafter with the winding down of the war in Afghanistan.


As of fiscal year 2013, the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq has declined 66 percent since fiscal year 2008.

The Department of Defense projects troop levels will decline a further 40 percent in fiscal year 2014.

The following charts provide some historical perspective on military spending.

U.S. national defense spending has ranged widely, from less than 1 percent of GDP in 1929 up to 43 percent in 1944. These extremes illustrate that resource allocation to defense can increase rapidly when a war demands it.

Focusing just on the post-World War II period, U.S. national defense spending as a percent of GDP has ranged from a high of 15 percent in 1952 (during the Korean War) to a low of 3.7 percent in 2000 (the period of relative tranquility preceding the terrorist attacks of the following year).


In the post-Cold War world, the U.S. national defense budget has fluctuated within a relatively narrow band. It fell by about three percentage points of GDP as the nation reaped the peace dividend of the 1990s, then rose after the terrorist attacks of 2001.

President Barack Obama's budget proposes cutting security spending to 2.4% of GDP in 2023. This would represent the lowest allocation of GDP to defense spending in the post-World War II era.


The United States' and its allies' share of world military spending fell from 2005 to 2010. It is projected to fall further, to 60 percent by 2015, even if U.S. spending as a share of GDP holds up at today's levels. Budgetary pressures in Europe may mean this share falls even more rapidly.



Democracies are generally regarded as friendly to the United States, and this chart delivers a similar verdict to the last one. :coffee:

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, democracies accounted for the vast majority of the world's military spending.

However, since the early 1990s, this share has declined slightly.



In 2012, U.S. military spending fell faster than overall military spending by democracies.


However, the United States continues to account for almost half of all military spending by democracies.

A decline in U.S. military spending is therefore likely to have a large impact on democracies' military spending as a share of the global total. :tup:

Trends in U.S. Military Spending - Council on Foreign Relations
 

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
History proves you wrong, :facepalm:

occupation of Germany and Japan by allies,

USSR occupation of eastern Europe.

China in Tibet.

US never sent troops in to North Vietnam, nor were objectives occupation but defending against spread of communism, domino effect.



and im talking about the today's world :tsk:
only you on any forum, who could challenge my last post, i think :facepalm:

hmmm, India won over Pakistan in 1972, making Bangladesh separated, while Kargil war in 1999 remained to this region.India couldonly get its area back,in "today's world". ...

this is not the world where you may offend, and offending in others border, is almost impossible. and its over 100% impossible to maintain hold there:wave:

Tibet region was forcefully occupied by CHina "in 50s" because it was a very small population spread over a big area, CHina transferred a part of its population there to maintain hold,otherwise see, none of others could maintain hold on a country,isn't it?

Germany and Japan was occupied in mid last century and were released after a year,:wave:

USSR occupation on East Europe had the same result in mid last century, you can't maintain hold on another country even in last mid century....

and yes, Vietnam or Iraq is what im discussing in today's world. you gotto live on that region for the period of time you occupy that country, which US couldn't do either in Vietnam in 70s nor in Iraq in 90s :wave:
.
 

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
Ranking of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel

State - Active Military - Reserve Military - Paramilitary - Total

Vietnam - 482,000 - 3,000,000 - 40,000 - 3,522,000 :ranger:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._military_and_paramilitary_personnel#The_list
.

Vietnam would be the best option to bring their military personnel to help India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._military_and_paramilitary_personnel#The_list

considering the serious troubles ongoing in India, bodies of a big number of Indian military personnel having occupied by souls of enemy countries like Bangladesh and also Pakistan, i would favor to bring at least 500,000 military personnel of Vietnam from its reserve military force, upward of half million.... India and Vietnam are military allies for many years, it may be one of the best option among all, i think......

and yes, it would come with at least 5,000 language interpreters of Vietnam with 5,000 cooks also :thumb:
.
 
Last edited:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top