What detirmines military might?

[sox63]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_act_mil_personnel.asp

If you look at this list you might understand why the US, is far more cuatious in initiating a war with any of the REAL threats (Iran, North Korea and to a smaller extent, China). They are simply outnumbered man for man, however if you go to the military expenditure, you see why the US is considered the most powerful when it comes to armed forces.

Now imagine the US insecuirity if China decides to spend equally as much as the US on it's military? Scary thought.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_mil_exp.asp

[Nod]

Probably things like:
- Number of people in the military
- Number of tanks, aircraft, ships, etc.
- The means to support all of the above.
- The means to deploy all the above.

Size does matter, but only if you can deploy it remotely.

[Goobie]

the size of the can of ass-woopin you can open:)

[RompelStompel]

You can have the best equipment - at the end of the day the soldiers make or break the military.

It's the personnel that determines military might.

[icyrus]

Having lots of men to expend for your cause its a positive, but not so much when an adversary has the means to make all your men disappear with a few well place guided missiles.

[sox63]

You can have the best equipment - at the end of the day the soldiers make or break the military.

It's the personnel that determines military might.

I guess the training of those soldiers has to be factored in, the website noted that they just put reported numbers and not quality of the training and quality of equipment.

[icyrus]

I guess the training of those soldiers has to be factored in, the website noted that they just put reported numbers and not quality of the training and quality of equipment.

Personally if I had to make a list:


Training
Equipment
Terrain
Numbers


In that order.

[ghoti]

America have worn down 40% of their military hardware in Iraq (rooivalk pwns the apache in those conditions.. useless note). They simply dont have the man power to deal with Iran without major aid. That said, nothing is stopping the US from using surgical strikes to remove Iranian military installations. Just dont expect many ground troops.

[sox63]

America have worn down 40% of their military hardware in Iraq (rooivalk pwns the apache in those conditions.. useless note). They simply dont have the man power to deal with Iran without major aid. That said, nothing is stopping the US from using surgical strikes to remove Iranian military installations. Just dont expect many ground troops.

I hope they don't use their "intelligence" sources to find those military installations, we all know how accurate they can be from Iraq.:D

Back to the subject, it is apparant to me anyway that China and Iran are "sleeping giants" in terms of being super powers. China's economy is growing rapidly, and only a matter of time till they start spending large percentages of their GDP on military hardware, they sure do have the numbers!

[RompelStompel]

(rooivalk pwns the apache in those conditions.. useless note).

The sand particle filters used on the AH-64 Apache was designed by a South African mechanical engineer.

[ghoti]

The sand particle filters used on the AH-64 Apache was designed by a South African mechanical engineer.

Thank you for the update. When were they added? I know in the first Iraq war an Apache used to spend 1 day in operation and 3 weeks been cleaned.

[Natas]

IMO military might is not easily measuerable. Sure you can count the tanks, aircraft carries, etc ,etc... but I think this is only a contributing factor. The face of war has changed. USA canbe said to have the biggest military, but if you look at Iraq, where the guerilla's are getting their money's worth. Like Icyrus has listed... there are other factors that impact on the iffecicacy on a military force. To add to Icyrus's list I would also say combat experience. But in addition to this, the fighters in Iraq are extremists who are ready to die fighting. I don think the americans share this trait. This makes the guerilla's stronger and scarier.

Equipment in a ground war is not that important as proven in the Vietnamese war. The vietnamese simply killed americans and used the US's own weapons against it. Equipment yes, when you are talking fighter jets and tomohawk missles!

[ghoti]

they sure do have the numbers!

...and very few human rights.

[RompelStompel]

Thank you for the update. When were they added? I know in the first Iraq war an Apache used to spend 1 day in operation and 3 weeks been cleaned.

No idea when the particle filters were added to the Apache :o

We had a talk with our Dynamics (aka Demonics :D ) lecturer - Dymanics at Tuks being taught by the Mechanical Engineers.

IIRC we were busy covering flow tempo and the subject somehow came up.

[sox63]

...and very few human rights.

That's why they scare me so much.

[ghoti]

No idea when the particle filters were added to the Apache :o

We had a talk with our Dynamics (aka Demonics :D ) lecturer - Dymanics at Tuks being taught by the Mechanical Engineers.

IIRC we were busy covering flow tempo and the subject somehow came up.

Do you know if the Apache uses the Israeli/South African CHASM system for its front gatling gun? I heard rumours that the yanks could not get it right so used our system.

[Leitmotif]

We need nukes. Lots of nukes.

[RompelStompel]

Do you know if the Apache uses the Israeli/South African CHASM system for its front gatling gun? I heard rumours that the yanks could not get it right so used our system.

Learned something new :)

No - don't know about the CHASM system.

[Angelo]

That's why they scare me so much.
And the Great Satan doesn't scare you seeing that it already has WMDs and it's the only country ever to use nukes on people? Aren't you scared when thinking about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay etc? I am.

[icyrus]

And the Great Satan doesn't scare you seeing that it already has WMDs and it's the only country ever to use a nuke on people? Aren't you scared when thinking about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay etc? I am.

Perhaps you should seek therapy then? By what you post, you need it quite desperately.

[Tassidar]

And the Great Satan doesn't scare you seeing that it already has WMDs and it's the only country ever to use nukes on people? Aren't you scared when thinking about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay etc? I am.

If the US wanted to invade us, it would have already done so. The US uses other (largely non-military) means to get what it wants in Africa.

China, with its large demand for resources is less well known. If they start finding themselves short of resources, they may be forced to recolonise Africa.

I know that both Aus and Singapore are watching China very closely.

[Angelo]

If the US wanted to invade us, it would have already done so. The US uses other (largely non-military) means to get what it wants in Africa.

China, with its large demand for resources is less well known. If they start finding themselves short of resources, they may be forced to recolonise Africa.

I know that both Aus and Singapore are watching China very closely.
Agreed, but the threat is not always direct. With big conflicts you can find yourselves in the line of fire having to join one side or the other. Consequences can spread worldwide.

[icyrus]

If the US wanted to invade us, it would have already done so. The US uses other (largely non-military) means to get what it wants in Africa.

China, with its large demand for resources is less well known. If they start finding themselves short of resources, they may be forced to recolonise Africa.

I know that both Aus and Singapore are watching China very closely.

I'm sure Russia will also have valid reasons for concern.

[RompelStompel]

I'm sure Russia will also have valid reasons for concern.

Japan as well.

[Tassidar]

Agreed, but the threat is not always direct. With big conflicts you can find yourselves in the line of fire having to join one side or the other. Consequences can spread worldwide.

I agree with you on that point. One of our government's strengths in the past, has been our ability to remain diplomatically neutral. Let's hope we can maintain that, especially since we face the risk of internal conflict if we don't. Siding with America can have consquences (remember Planet Hollywood), while siding with Iran or China might dry up much of our precious FDI.


Japan as well.

Japan in particualar. Old memories die hard, and the Japanese attrocities committed in WWII will still be on the mind of the Chinese. Invasion could bring the opportunity for revenge. Something Japan would not relish.

[JayM]

Aircraft carriers are key. If you want to pulverise another country with air strikes, you need carriers, and the US has lots of them. It would be difficult for any other country to attack the US because they don't have enough carriers to support the large number of aircraft that would be required.

I think the US currently has more functional aircraft carriers than every other nation put together. Scary.

[RompelStompel]

Rule the Skies , you rule the waters (since Midway).

[sox63]

Japan as well.

Speaking of Japan, they and Germany rank quite highly in the list. I thought that after the World Wars restrictions were put on their armed forces? If so, imagine where they would be without those restrictions?

[Syndyre]

Speaking of Japan, they and Germany rank quite highly in the list. I thought that after the World Wars restrictions were put on their armed forces? If so, imagine where they would be without those restrictions?

Those restrictions don't apply any more AFAIK. Japan does have very strict self-imposed limitations about how the forces can be used though.

[RompelStompel]

Speaking of Japan, they and Germany rank quite highly in the list. I thought that after the World Wars restrictions were put on their armed forces? If so, imagine where they would be without those restrictions?

Bundeswehr was created in 1955 when West Germany joined NATO.

Don't recall any restrictions being imposed on the post-WWII Bundeswehr.

Think you might be referring to the post-WWI restrictions imposed on the Reichswehr.

[icyrus]

Japan in particualar. Old memories die hard, and the Japanese attrocities committed in WWII will still be on the mind of the Chinese. Invasion could bring the opportunity for revenge. Something Japan would not relish.

I would think Japans alliance with the US would mean that China would look elsewhere before considering Japan a target.

[edc]

being able to do a Zerg rush early on in the game.

[Freshy-ZN]

Like someone said: carriers are key. Having a shedload of nukes as a deterrent also helps. China may have more soldiers but training and equiping those soldiers to a level of other countries costs too much. China has lots of 'militia' running around with AKs.

I remember a few years ago it was said that one US carrier group had more ships, helis and planes that the whole SAAF and SA Navy put together. You start to get the picture. But also very important is Intel. The US, UK NATO et al have this like no others.

[Nanfeishen]

China may have more soldiers but training and equiping those soldiers to a level of other countries costs too much. China has lots of 'militia' running around with AKs.

:eek:

Sorry to say, but China has a lot more than what you assume, their training is a lot better than you think , and they certainly dont have a lot of "militia" running around, they are a little more organised than that.
The problem is that China keeps its military cards close to its chest, and there military programs are a lot more secretive than in the West, so there is a lot of conjecture about what is and what isnt.
By 2005 their defense budget was about 30 billion U.S.$, and if you look at the following link you can see many of the stats are 2 years and older, indicating a lack of intelligence with regards China's military spenditure, equipment and capabilities.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/index.html

[noxibox]

It would be a mistake to underestimate the Chinese. I think they have the potential to dwarf the US in economic and military power.

[marine1]

And the Great Satan doesn't scare you seeing that it already has WMDs and it's the only country ever to use nukes on people? Aren't you scared when thinking about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay etc? I am.Maybe because you have something to hide? If you are a person who obeys the law then you have nothing to fear.

[tibby.dude]

If you look at this list you might understand why the US, is far more cuatious in initiating a war with any of the REAL threats (Iran, North Korea and to a smaller extent, China).

China did actually engage US led allied forces (under a UN command) in the Korean War [1950] when 270,000 so called Chinese "volunteers" swarmed over the border when Gen McArthur approached the Yalu river.

The US led forces got their butts kicked and had to retreat all the way to the DMZ with the commies eventually capturing Seoul.

A stalemate followed with an eventual peace agreement.

[supersunbird]

The US might have less men than China, but the US has many many force multipliers that increase the effectiveness of weapons platforms.

[RompelStompel]

China did actually engage US led allied forces (under a UN command) in the Korean War [1950] when 270,000 so called Chinese "volunteers" swarmed over the border when Gen McArthur approached the Yalu river.

The US led forces got their butts kicked and had to retreat all the way to the DMZ with the commies eventually capturing Seoul.

A stalemate followed with an eventual peace agreement.

Forgot the Inchon landings.

Yep , Korean War never did realize a clear victory for either side.

[Angelo]

Maybe because you have something to hide? If you are a person who obeys the law then you have nothing to fear.
Ja...like the innocent women and little children of Iraq had nothing to fear. :rolleyes:

[marine1]

Ja...like the innocent women and little children of Iraq had nothing to fear. :rolleyes:Yes exactly. They only have to fear their lunatic neighbours ;)

[killadoob]

just because a country has more troops means nothing

the US may not have as many troops but i can assure you that their airforce and tomahawk missiles will soon change that

[Angelo]

Yes exactly. They only have to fear their lunatic neighbours ;)
"They" can't fear no more, they are dead, thanks to US bombs! :mad:

[supersunbird]

Yes exactly. They only have to fear their lunatic neighbours ;)

Hey Marine1, you never answered me about the US of A training and arming and funding terrorists in Central and South America in the 80's in another thread...

[Geriatrix]

just because a country has more troops means nothing

the US may not have as many troops but i can assure you that their airforce and tomahawk missiles will soon change that

Ah, but the problem with the advanced US missile systems and other digital unmanned systems is their dependence on satellite navigation and computer systems.

And China proved themselves capable of accurately and cheaply destroying satellites a couple of months back.

That little stunt exposed the US Achilles Heel.
China could theoretically take down the entire US communication, navigation and self defense systems without the US being able to do anything about it.

If I remember correctly the Pentagon shat themselves.

And lets not forget Chinas seemingly ease of accessing and controlling US military, energy and civilian computer systems. Remember Titan Rain?

Interesting times ahead.

[orin76]

just because a country has more troops means nothing

the US may not have as many troops but i can assure you that their airforce and tomahawk missiles will soon change that

Can the US defend itself against any overt military threat? Yes, but the ability of the US to impose it's military might on nations is limited by it's lack of manpower.
If your objective is to totally obliterate a nation then the US is more than able, but if you need to go door to door to find your enemies who are hidden among innocents (i.e. Vietnam, Iraq etc.) then you need old fashioned manpower.

[RompelStompel]

Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who follow and of the man who leads that gains that victory.

General George S. Patton Jnr
Cavalry Journal (September 1933)

[McSack]

Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who follow and of the man who leads that gains that victory.

General George S. Patton Jnr
Cavalry Journal (September 1933)

True until the advent of the nuke

[edc]

Being able to attain victory and being able to live afterwards to enjoy it. I joked earlier when I said "being able to Zerg rush early in the game" (nobody laughed but anyway). When you raise an army to fight an opponent you expect to win when you engage in battle. If you know that both your armies will be destroyed and that you will be unable to recover afterwards you continue to do research go gain the competitive edge you need to win a war, not a battle.

[Gnome]

Ah, but the problem with the advanced US missile systems and other digital unmanned systems is their dependence on satellite navigation and computer systems.

And China proved themselves capable of accurately and cheaply destroying satellites a couple of months back.

Military or civilian? Link? Military satellites are usually designed to be hard to find and there location is obviously kept secret.

Missiles don't need satellite's.



That little stunt exposed the US Achilles Heel.
China could theoretically take down the entire US communication, navigation and self defense systems without the US being able to do anything about it.

What about mobile communication systems? I saw one they deployed in Iraq to track the movement of potential STINGER(s) fired by the enemy (none were).



Interesting times ahead.


True, but I think either side fears the other really. To me it seems like a potential for a cold war pt2 ahead.

Also just because the intelligence we receive (IE we the civilians) doesn't mean the US or China for that matter knows more than they are leading each other to believe. Remember counter-intelligence is key ;)

It's all a big game...

[RompelStompel]

True until the advent of the nuke

To a certain degree technological superiority is still negated by personnel quality.

[StrongTurd]

Military or civilian? Link? Military satellites are usually designed to be hard to find and there location is obviously kept secret.

Missiles don't need satellite's.
Not so. There are dozens of agencies around the world that regularly track anything in orbit around the earth right down to the size of a small bolt. NORAD in the US immediately comes to mind and the Russians and Chinese, amongst others, do likewise.

There is nothing hard to find about the orbit of ANY satellite (operational or retired) orbiting the earth. There are various sources on the internet that regularly publish databases containing the orbits of all satellites of the earth. A satellite launch is not something that you can hide. In fact, amateur satellite tracking is a fledging hobby.

What is not always published (especially with defence payloads) is the exact mission of a particular satellite. However, even this is typically fairly easy to figure out by looking at the orbital parameters of the craft. Different missions require different orbits.

The Chinese have not demonstrated the ability to destroy a GPS satellite, however. The GPS constellation orbits at an altitude of 20000km with an inclination of 55 degrees iirc. That is a very high orbit (halfway to geostationary) and it would require numerous engine burns taking many hours (at least) in order to reach for a hunter-killer satellite.

Even if such an attack was carried out successfully, there are at least another two dozen GPS satellites in orbit that would still function. The Chinese definitely do not have the capability to provide enough boosters quickly enough to destroy enough craft to disable the GPS network.

Still, if they (or anybody else) were ever able to achieve the downing of the GPS network, that would have very dire consequences for the US military. Sure, missiles have inertial navigation but the fact is that the entire world is becoming more dependant on GPS navigation by the day.

[tibby.dude]

Forgot the Inchon landings.

Indeed but that was before the Chinese intervention and all the gains since then (entire North Korea was under UN control) was lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir

[RompelStompel]

Ta :)

[Mymilitary]

US is considered as the No:1 in military with respect to the number of soldiers and for other things like Aircraft,weapons it is equipped with most modern technology.

[StrongTurd]

US is considered as the No:1 in military with respect to the number of soldiers and for other things like Aircraft,weapons it is equipped with most modern technology.

Digging in the archives, are we?

The US is unquestionably the strongest military power in the world but that has not prevented them from being very unsuccessful in their foreign campaigns. They've been spending years throwing massive amounts of borrowed money at trying to subdue two backward little Middle East countries. If the USA knows what's good for it then they will stop fighting costly illegal wars and start worrying about the very real threat of them entering the biggest depression in human history.

[PeterCH]

Digging in the archives, are we?

The US is unquestionably the strongest military power in the world but that has not prevented them from being very unsuccessful in their foreign campaigns. They've been spending years throwing massive amounts of borrowed money at trying to subdue two backward little Middle East countries. If the USA knows what's good for it then they will stop fighting costly illegal wars and start worrying about the very real threat of them entering the biggest depression in human history.

Yes but the Soviet Union couldn't even suppress Afghanistan while the
Americans sorted that out much better (the Soviets had to cower in their
bases, NATO has free reign over most of Afghanistan), Iraq (most of that is
under control) and Balkans (they sorted out Serbia - I disagreed with that but they did anyway). Not to mention on a proxy basis they are beating
the Al Quada in Somalia.

[Pitbull]

Man power and funds

[TheHiveMind]

Its all about:

1:Nukes
2:Aircraft carriers/Aircraft
3:Propoganda
4:Cruisers
5:Intelligence/Spying

With those in place, you should have enough info to make very informed decisions.
From there, you knock out/Hijack a countries infrastructure and then hold it hostage.
Water, electricity, fuel, supply lines etc.
Wait for vulnerabilities to emerge and then act on them when they do.

Information quadruples the effectiveness of everything in your arsenal.

Propoganda can help with recruiting, funding, morale etc etc

[Flanders]

Ah, but the problem with the advanced US missile systems and other digital unmanned systems is their dependence on satellite navigation and computer systems.

And China proved themselves capable of accurately and cheaply destroying satellites a couple of months back.

That little stunt exposed the US Achilles Heel.
China could theoretically take down the entire US communication, navigation and self defense systems without the US being able to do anything about it.

If I remember correctly the Pentagon shat themselves.

And lets not forget Chinas seemingly ease of accessing and controlling US military, energy and civilian computer systems. Remember Titan Rain?

Interesting times ahead.

Also, if a technology were to be developed that made conventional radar redundant then all the time and effort put into existing stealth technology would be for nil-something the US relies on heavily in a shock and awe campaign. I know that could be considered far fetched but as was proven in WW2, in times of heavy conflict, the drive to out-gun the opposition is immense to say the least.

[BrandonH]

I hope they don't use their "intelligence" sources to find those military installations, we all know how accurate they can be from Iraq.:D

Back to the subject, it is apparant to me anyway that China and Iran are "sleeping giants" in terms of being super powers. China's economy is growing rapidly, and only a matter of time till they start spending large percentages of their GDP on military hardware, they sure do have the numbers!


Iran a sleeping giant??? You must be joking!

They have lots of troops but like the old Iraqi army are badly trained and have inferior equipment. Remember they fought against Iraq for a decade without getting anywhere. They US wiped out the Iraqi army in 3 weeks.

[Albereth]

Military might is determined by your ability to project. The USA is unparalleled in its ability to take a conflict anywhere in the world.

It is ridiculous to consider a NK/US conflict. If there was an out and out war NK would be a smouldering heap of ash irrespective of the number of soldiers they have. So your next scenario is trying to have NK behave without having to fire any shots.

The other thing to bear in mind is that militaries are not very good at performing policing actions. The doctrine of superior firepower means that the local threat will cease to be and oops, sorry for the collateral damage will follow shortly. I throw this into the mix as I am sure there is bound to be some comment about the US losing a war in Iraq. There is no war there - that 'war' was over before it even began. We now have soldiers doing a police force's job and that doesn't really work.

[PeterCH]

Military might is determined by your ability to project. The USA is unparalleled in its ability to take a conflict anywhere in the world.

The Americans made a blunder in that they thought that like Eastern Europe,
and Korea, Iraq would welcome them with cheers and flowers. Iraq however did not, instead chose civil war over political stability under US hegemony.

The only reason why the US is failing at policing some areas of Iraq is because they don't adopt Hitlerite tactics. Adopting such would make the country governable very quickly but at a huge moral cost. Mass imprisonments, mass executions, concentration camps, torture,
and so on.

[saffakanera]

Obviously the SADF is the greatest on earth. BMW's with .50 cals mounted on the sides.

[ToxicBunny]

what?....

Some strange new bot maybe?

[Freshy-ZN]

Is there are any way to send photo to my husband, he is in U.S army?

So Mike....what is your husbands name?

[sand_man]

wtf

[Alan]

So Mike....what is your husbands name?

Don't ask, don't tell

:D

[timgaul]

America have worn down 40% of their military hardware in Iraq (rooivalk pwns the apache in those conditions.. useless note). They simply dont have the man power to deal with Iran without major aid. That said, nothing is stopping the US from using surgical strikes to remove Iranian military installations. Just dont expect many ground troops.

Been having a Jericho marathon: you could just nuke the bastards :D

[PeterCH]

Been having a Jericho marathon: you could just nuke the bastards :D

Nuke who? Nukes are serious matter. You don't use them lightly.

[Balstrome]

From the little I know, China does not have an effective navy, especially in the force deployment area. They would have to rely on commercial ships to move troops and kit. And while doing that, they would have little or no protection for these convoys.

[Slaine73]

Damn. I can' believe this. Sites with the word millitary is blocked at work. Bloody hell!!:mad:

[R/SGT]

For those of you that are interested, a nice site for military discussions is http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/.

With regards to the comments made on the US seeming inability to properly quell violence in its operational areas, you must remember that they have to operate within strict military codes which govern what they can and can’t do, whereas their opponents can pretty much do as they like.

[TheHiveMind]

Who has the might? The guys with the biggest number of technologically advanced nukes ofcourse. Via EMP they can disable a continent by detonating the nuke high in the atmosphere. Goodbye communications, goodbye law and order, goodbye government. If you don't have a sufficient nuclear capability, you will always be on the defensive and can't conceivably attack.

[mezu]

Iran a sleeping giant??? You must be joking!

They have lots of troops but like the old Iraqi army are badly trained and have inferior equipment. Remember they fought against Iraq for a decade without getting anywhere. They US wiped out the Iraqi army in 3 weeks.

+1