Countries Ranked by Military Strength (2016)

[gambit]

Technology matters, but as long as wars are fought by humans, it stands to reason then, that what motivates humans matters a lot.

I would actually say it matters today more than ever before. In previous centuries, a significant amount of population didn't really care who won the war. They were peasants, whether peasants under a French king or a British king. In our region, borders meant very little, there was no real sense of nationalism (that's why Empires were easier to maintain than today).

Nowadays, it is different. A person living in a small town has been trained to be patriotic, has access to the news, and when he sees on TV that the enemy just killed a soldier of his country, his emotion flares up more.

This differs per country. Compare another war. Imagine South vs North Korea (without any advance help). South has more advanced technology, but N. Koreans have two things. One, they have a Military First philosophy in their country (military comes before everything else) and second, as the poorer nation, they have LESS to lose and MORE to gain. The NK soldiers would be more motivated, because getting South Korea will mean more for them. But what would South Korean's gain for grabbing North Korea? They would have just added a whole new population which would be a burden on their economy. A South Korean would desire a stalemate, a North Korea would desire a full victory.

Why does Israel succeed in its defensive wars against the Arabs? Because if it loses, IT GOES EXTINCT. But what happens if lets say Jordan or Egypt loses? They just go back to their countries, maybe they lose a bit of land, but what how much does that affect an average Jordanian or Egyptian?

Hunger, motivation, ideology, all of this matters more than ever.

Your argument is so flawed...

The NK soldiers would be more motivated, because getting South Korea will mean more for them. But what would South Korean's gain for grabbing North Korea? They would have just added a whole new population which would be a burden on their economy.

Why not the same burden be applicable to NKR ? Why not the SKRean soldier be motivated to take on new land ?

Looky here...You want to portray US and our allies to be weak, say so. But do not insult the Americans here by saying that some with dual citizenship will not fight for US. It make you look stupid more than it make US look cowardly.

 

[Bornubus]

But remember, we still don't have the capability of launching an expeditionary force like the countries above us in the list.

Only US has a true expeditionary force with a dedicated Marine corps,its Air wing and support ships and Armour.

Also Russia and UK do have marines albeit on a smaller scale.

But the good things is that we've taken a certain imp steps like creating a dedicated Amphibious Assault infantry - now 10th Sikh light Infantry is dedicated A A force on the lines of Royal marines,Navy has ships which can transport T 90 and T 72 at enemy shores.

Once the induction of LPDs will complete it will be a great boost to our expedition capabilities IMO INS Jalashwa has been bought for this purpose.

 

[Piper]

Your argument is so flawed...


Why not the same burden be applicable to NKR ? Why not the SKRean soldier be motivated to take on new land ?

Looky here...You want to portray US and our allies to be weak, say so. But do not insult the Americans here by saying that some with dual citizenship will not fight for US. It make you look stupid more than it make US look cowardly.

One has to only look at WW2 history to know how hard some of the immigrants fought. Though some exceptions are likely - At large the immigrant community has been at the vanguard of US Military.

Cheers!

 

[gambit]

One has to only look at WW2 history to know how hard some of the immigrants fought. Though some exceptions are likely - At large the immigrant community has been at the vanguard of US Military.

Cheers!

WW II was before the Internet, therefore, the 442nd 'Go For Broke' Infantry Regiment does not exist.

 

[LeGenD]

It's such a hard list to make. Kinds of wars makes a big difference, is it defensive, offensive, fought in a third country, etc. The duration of the war makes a huge difference too, some countries have a big advantage at first, while others will be able to rely either on their population or a military industry to not only replace weaponsnbut also to make new ones to meet the needs.

But also, it is not taking into account the drive and the Idealogy of the people.

Imagine two scenarios. 1) China attacking USA land 2) USA attacking China land

I think China would be a much better defender because their population would be much more willing to die for China. How many Americans would be willing to die for America? A lot of their population are dual citizens, I doubt they feel 100% American to be willing to stay and die. But where would a Chinese go? A Pakostan-American or Arab-American or Iranian-American could easily run away and become Canadian or British, they won't care. But a Chinese has only the option of remaining Chinese. So they would have to stay and fight.

I think that you are underestimating American resolve.

US might be a nation of immigrants but I wouldn't doubt the motivation of its people to protect its mainland in the hour of need.

An individual spends years to build his home, family and improve his livelihood. And when these fundamental rights are in jeopardy, you can expect the affected individual to pick firearms and fight.

Americans never lacked in motivation. This is how they defeated British Empire, Mexican Empire, Spanish Empire, Germany, Japan and Al-Qaeda network.

9/11 event alone sparked a killing-spree that led to destruction of 3 countries and continues at present.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Pakistan will not lag behind in this league, waiting for the economy to improve .

 

[UkroTurk]

Ottoman Impire together with Sweden fought a lot of time against Russian Empire. The King's of Sweden were brave.

 

[Madali]

Your argument is so flawed...


Why not the same burden be applicable to NKR ? Why not the SKRean soldier be motivated to take on new land ?

Looky here...You want to portray US and our allies to be weak, say so. But do not insult the Americans here by saying that some with dual citizenship will not fight for US. It make you look stupid more than it make US look cowardly.

I gave my reasons on south and north korea.

I think anothet comparison is iraq vs iran. Iranians were much more motivated. This isnt something genetic or anything. Its circumstances. Iran had just had its revolution, therefore thet have much more of a drive. If the war had happendd 10 years latet, once the revolution fervor had died down, they might not have had the same drive.

I'm not trying to make usa seem weak. Uts obviously not. And im not saying no one will fight. It just seems that, on a percentage level, there would be a higher percentge of chinese that would be willing to die.

This has nothing to do with being macho or strong. Its just that the chinese have less alternatives. If the Chinese would have choices of leaving and going to canada and uk, I would make a different argument.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

1. Why not ?
   It was Pakistan that realised that fact when we decapitate your nation in 1971.

That's actually embarrassing from an indian POV. india is a nation that itself is at least 7 times bigger than Pakistan population wise. india has always had access to the world's most advanced weapons and the backing of the world's most powerfulest nations. Whether it happened in 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001 or 2011, bangladesh's seperation from Pakistan was always enevitable as bangladesh was 1000s of kms away from Pakistan and has nothing in common with us. In 1971 the bengalis got their opportunity. Now bangladesh and india combined means that Pakistan was fighting an enemy 10 times it's size. Impossible odds that no nation can overcome. Yet Pakistan survived and is still here. 1971 is nearly 50 years ago and things have drastically changed since then. The reality is that the indian military high command are aware of this that is why they didn't attack Pakistan after 2001 parliament attacks and mumbai attacks in 2008.

 

[45'22']

Only US has a true expeditionary force with a dedicated Marine corps,its Air wing and support ships and Armour.

Also Russia and UK do have marines albeit on a smaller scale.

But the good things is that we've taken a certain imp steps like creating a dedicated Amphibious Assault infantry - now 10th Sikh light Infantry is dedicated A A force on the lines of Royal marines,Navy has ships which can transport T 90 and T 72 at enemy shores.

Once the induction of LPDs will complete it will be a great boost to our expedition capabilities IMO INS Jalashwa has been bought for this purpose.

I dont think we are going for the 4 LPD/LHD anytime sooner
@PARIKRAMA

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Oh yes there is no cure for envy and baldness

india's population is more than 160 times that of israel yet the israelis are technologically, scientifically and militarily decades more advanced than india. That is why india buys military technology from israel and not the other way round. The reality is therefore that india is not really ahead of israel militarily.

 

[45'22']

That's actually embarrassing from an indian POV. india is a nation that itself is at least 7 times bigger than Pakistan population wise. india has always had access to the world's most advanced weapons and the backing of the world's most powerfulest nations. Whether it happened in 1971, 1981, 1991, 2001 or 2011, bangladesh's seperation from Pakistan was always enevitable as bangladesh was 1000s of kms away from Pakistan and has nothing in common with us. In 1971 the bengalis got their opportunity. Now bangladesh and india combined means that Pakistan was fighting an enemy 10 times it's size. Impossible odds that no nation can overcome. Yet Pakistan survived and is still here. 1971 is nearly 50 years ago and things have drastically changed since then. The reality is that the indian military high command are aware of this that is why they didn't attack Pakistan after 2001 parliament attacks and mumbai attacks in 2008.

The most powerful nation US was backing Pak not India...even China was not in favor of another Bangladesh

 

[Madali]

I think that you are underestimating American resolve.

US might be a nation of immigrants but I wouldn't doubt the motivation of its people to protect its mainland in the hour of need.

An individual spends years to build his home, family and improve his livelihood. And when these fundamental rights are in jeopardy, you can expect the affected individual to pick firearms and fight.

Americans never lacked in motivation. This is how they defeated British Empire, Mexican Empire, Spanish Empire, Germany, Japan and Al-Qaeda network.

9/11 event alone sparked a killing-spree that led to destruction of 3 countries and continues at present.

I think earlier wars were different. Regarding the british empire, for example, EVERYONE was an immigrant. It was a new nation, they had wored hard at it, and they were fighting for their freedom and independance.

Now usa is different. You have americans who have been there for 200 years and you have americans who have moved to usa for economic reasons recently and have their own minitowns and their languages.

Again, this is not about american "weakness". It's just circumstances, and its only if america is attacked. When was the last time usa was attacked?

I think that you are underestimating American resolve.

US might be a nation of immigrants but I wouldn't doubt the motivation of its people to protect its mainland in the hour of need.

An individual spends years to build his home, family and improve his livelihood. And when these fundamental rights are in jeopardy, you can expect the affected individual to pick firearms and fight.

Americans never lacked in motivation. This is how they defeated British Empire, Mexican Empire, Spanish Empire, Germany, Japan and Al-Qaeda network.

9/11 event alone sparked a killing-spree that led to destruction of 3 countries and continues at present.

I think earlier wars were different. Regarding the british empire, for example, EVERYONE was an immigrant. It was a new nation, they had wored hard at it, and they were fighting for their freedom and independance.

Now usa is different. You have americans who have been there for 200 years and you have americans who have moved to usa for economic reasons recently and have their own minitowns and their languages.

Again, this is not about american "weakness". It's just circumstances, and its only if america is attacked. When was the last time usa was attacked?

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Realistically speaking, the top 5 world militaries are:

(1) america
(2) Russia
(3) China
(4) Israel
(5) england

The order of the next 150 nations or so is very debatable.

The most powerful nation US was backing Pak not India...even China was not in favor of another Bangladesh

The americans have never ever really backed Pakistan and they never will. They needed Pakistan's location to spy on Russia and logistical support for the invasion of Afghanistan. That's all. It's just business. Nothing else. Pakistan can never ever have a close relationship with the americans like we do with China and the Middle Eastern Muslim nations.

 

[45'22']

Realistically speaking, the top 5 world militaries are:

(1) america
(2) Russia
(3) China
(4) Israel
(5) england

The order of the next 150 nations or so is very debatable.




The americans have never ever really backed Pakistan and they never will. They needed Pakistan's location to spy on Russia and logistical support for the invasion of Afghanistan. That's all. It's just business. Nothing else. Pakistan can never ever have a close relationship with the americans like we do with China and the Middle Eastern Muslim nations.

During the war of 71,they had sent a cbg fleet which was intercepted by Russian Navy
They considered you as their allies then which has changed now