personally, i think that for the people out there who want to measure military power in terms of nuclear weapons capabilities, then it is a pointless argument because by nukes dont determine the military might of a country. True that the weapns of mass destruction can wipe out entire cities in a matter of minutes, we are talking about the brillance of the generals, innovative technology and other natural geographical aspects of the country. Just bringing this up because i read a post somewhere talking about how a country is ranked high because of its nuclear stockpile.
Top 10 Military Nations
- Thread starter Chengdu J-10
- Start date
- Status
That was my post. The original post made no qualifications and no statements about the "brillance" of the generals. It simply stated the top 10 military nations.
Nuclear weapons are, by definition, military weapons. A nation has to have very significant technical capabilities and manufacturing and logistics to produce and support them. So, in the absence of a qualifier (which there were none when this thread began) an absolutely strong measure of military capability is a nation's nuclear weapon capability.
It just so happens, that those nations with this capability are also the same nations that, in a purely conventional sense, also rate in the top ten in almost all cases IMHO. And given the level of achievement necessary to create, field, and maintain a credible nuclear force, it is not too surprising that the nations rated highest in that category are also among the top conventional military powers as well.
I agree that it'd be pointless to compare in the event of a full-scale nuclear exchange. However, I also believe that as time passes, more and more nations will obtain or build nukes. We may see battlefield nukes being deployed & used by end of this century.
As the technology and military capability gap between poorer and wealthy nations increase, poorer nations or factions will have little choice but to depend on WMD's to gain strategic parity, or at least a beneficial negotiating position (like Libya & N Korea).
Last edited:
ger_mark
Junior Member
1 USA
2 China
3 Germany
4 France
5 UK
6 Russia
7 Israel
8 Japan
.
.
.
rest doesnt matter
Some armies are bigger, but inferior in technology, but some may be inferior, but their sheer number of cannon foders make up for their lack of technology.
Some countries have better force projection, but that in my opinion is worthless is all you can do, is use it against third world countries. Some have superior navies, but again, you can't drive them on land, and that is where most wars are won and lost.
2 China
3 Germany
4 France
5 UK
6 Russia
7 Israel
8 Japan
.
.
.
rest doesnt matter
Some armies are bigger, but inferior in technology, but some may be inferior, but their sheer number of cannon foders make up for their lack of technology.
Some countries have better force projection, but that in my opinion is worthless is all you can do, is use it against third world countries. Some have superior navies, but again, you can't drive them on land, and that is where most wars are won and lost.
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
You seem to be using this opinion to bump Germany up the list. Rather convenient if you ask me......
Of course it's nonsense. If you have little or no power projection you have even less of a chance against a more significant power.
Some have superior navies, but again, you can't drive them on land, and that is where most wars are won and lost.[/QUOTE]
And how are you going to get those armies to those areas without a navy to escort and transport them? Teleporters?
ger_mark
Junior Member
And how are you going to get those armies to those areas without a navy to escort and transport them? Teleporters?
just like the us navy does it all the time,charter civil transport ships
having 1-2 small landing craft's such as france and britain doesnt make much of tactical sense if you fight a serious power
also germany has a much larger air transport fleet then britain btw
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Umm, we don't have 1-2 small landing craft. We have a fair number of substantial ships (not sure about the Frogs).
But even if you charter civilian ships, again, how are you going to get them to their destination safely without a powerful naval escort? You talked about small power projection only being good against third-world countries - any military power would try to ambush your unarmed civilian ships en route.
You still need naval shipping to do the bulk of the transportation, including heavy equipment.
ger_mark
Junior Member
where do you want to invade? antarctica?
there are alot of rail's between berlin and Kiev for example :roll:
the german merchant navy is 3 times larger then the british one and we have enough navy to escort them, british navy has a few more ships but our fleet is much younger
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Don't be so silly. You can't rely on rail links because that assumes countries in between want you to transport your forces across their territory.
"A few more ships"? We have 8 destroyers and 17 frigates, compared to your 15 frigates. We have 9 SSNs, compared to your 4 SSKs (the U206 couldn't escort a taskforce). You also have no aircraft carriers, LPHs, LPDs, etc.
If you want to keep digging yourself a hole, feel free, but it's clear the RN is superior and that counts for a lot. In other areas, the RAF has ordered more Typhoons than the Luftwaffe, will also receive the F-35 in significant numbers, etc. We also spend nearly twice as much as you on defence.
- Status