The 11 most powerful militaries in the world

[Neptune]

you want me to troll?

btw, i dont know how this list was made but it has surely ignored two Nuclear powers, Pakistan and North Korea, and also there is no way that UK's nuclear Arsenal is smaller, than India's, so i dont know how they have evaluated the militarizes

Nope, I don't invite you to trolling

Pakistan and North Korea are in different leagues. North Korea being a nuclear state (unofficially) has a very large army having most of her equipment from mid cold war Era whereas Pakistan maintains a large army with ageing equipment. But unlike NK, Pakistan is developing and modernizing her military day by day. As for UK, course it's not smaller. UK has a very small military with top notch equipment. But has a very small military and most of his forces are reserve. (Note: they decreased the number of active deployed personnel to minumum since the London 12 Olympics). India has a very large military. Air and Naval assets are well equipped but can't say the same for their army. No matter how superior deep strike capabilities UK has, India is superior bt firepower. All due respect, even Egypt has higher firepower than UK. What keeps UK at TOP10 is her well trained troops with advanced technology.

 

[Ayush]

i agree

 

[Ceonwulf]

Nope, I don't invite you to trolling

Pakistan and North Korea are in different leagues. North Korea being a nuclear state (unofficially) has a very large army having most of her equipment from mid cold war Era whereas Pakistan maintains a large army with ageing equipment. But unlike NK, Pakistan is developing and modernizing her military day by day. As for UK, course it's not smaller. UK has a very small military with top notch equipment. But has a very small military and most of his forces are reserve. (Note: they decreased the number of active deployed personnel to minumum since the London 12 Olympics). India has a very large military. Air and Naval assets are well equipped but can't say the same for their army. No matter how superior deep strike capabilities UK has, India is superior bt firepower. All due respect, even Egypt has higher firepower than UK. What keeps UK at TOP10 is her well trained troops with advanced technology.

Its hard to compare North Korea and Pakistan. Both countries are separated by 1,000's of miles and do not have the power projection capabilities to attack each-other. Therefore, what does it matter who has the most tanks or the best technology? It is meaningless and irrelevant.

The primary focus of the South Korean and Pakistani militaries is to defend against their neighbouring enemies (I.e India and North Korea).

As for Britain, her armed forces are not small, they are considered medium in size with approximately 200,000 active personnel. They are highly sophisticated, technologically advanced and maintain key expeditionary capabilities.

Firepower alone is not really that important. Consider this: A force of one hundred Challenger2 MBTs is better than a force of one thousand T-55 or T-72 MBTs, even though the force of one thousand T-55s and T-72s have superior firepower.

Precision firepower and network-enabled warfare is much more important, and Britain is superior to both India and Egypt in terms of precision firepower and network-enabled warfare.

 

[500]

A country whom military fight with unarmd people and shoot down few rockets with their soo called super duper Iron dome now become POWERFULL lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz isay ziada zabardast ranking ho he nahe sakhti

Some toys we captured from little unarmed kids:

 

[Speeder 2]

The OP is bullshit, which has IQ of 32 or even less. Period. \

-- no wonder, comes straight from Yahoo India.


For any such ranking, there must be a key assumption on the use of nuke, or the absence of it.


With nukes counted (which is meanless btw in a real world coz evey country would be euqally powerful in the mist of nuclear winters ), there will be only 4 levels of rankings if forced to rank:


Level 1: Russia and the US. ( coz each can destroy the earth 10X times)

level 2: China ( coz almost can destroy the earth X times)

Above 3 are geograpghically large enough to have several 1000s or so survivors perhaps, or perhaps not even 5.

Level 3: UK France and Japan ( yes, Japan can produce more nukes in 1 month, if it wants to, than what UK and France putting together. And Japan has perhaps even superior long/ditance rocket-missile technogies than both UK and France) - the problem of these 3 is that they are geographically too small to sustain a simple round of nuke attack by Level 1 and Level 2 players.

Level 4: all the rest.




°°°°°°



A much more seriously ranking is, however, the ranking without nukes. That is the reality. And plus 1 more critical assumption:

in a war (when such a ranking has any sense at all) one country just can't import weapons - ammunitions at its will, because

1. it is illogical, e.g. how the heck India is supposed to rank above France when these 2 are at war when a huge part of India´s `superior` weapons are imported from France and France´s allies England and USA? In a war, you can not import your logistics. If one is incapable of building and maintaining elementary logistics abc projects such as toilets and sawege systems, one is incapable of handling logistics properly in a much distressed scenarios such as in wars. Simples! Remember, In a war a country is largely on its own when measuring its military powess as we do now.


So, the ranking is therefore the true and real war potential-capability of a standalone nation with all its tech, industries, economy, and without doubt the most importantly its people, not only the numbers, but also sheer determination, spirit, level of discipline, industrialness, endurance, and unity of all of them:

1. China, US : without nukes, they ´re about even . US is superior at Air-Sea, while China is superior at land-coast. If the war takes place between the two at a place near China proper, China is likely to win, whereas when it takes place far from China, the US would have a upper hand.

2. Russia: can´t beat the US in quality. can´t beat China in quantity and perhaps also much of the quality at the moment. The industrial might, one of the main drivers of a powerful military, of today´s Russia is 1 full league behind both China and USA.

3. Japan ( the sheer size and sophitication of Japanese indudstries could turn it into a military great power given a short notice. It would most likley loss to Russia because the later has a much greater geo size advantage)

4. France ( not convincingly though, due to these `cheese-eating surrender monkeys` seem to have never won a decent war along since Napoleon despite of possessing many advantages)

5. UK

6. Germany ( may switch the rank with France to be #4, due to the same reason as 3)

7. Italy

8. Spain

9. South Korea

10, North Korea (if NK were not starved as it is now it would probably rank above Italy)

11. Iran / Turkey / Taiwan

 

[Indischer]

The OP is bullshit, which has IQ of 32 or even less. Period. \

-- no wonder, comes straight from Yahoo India.


For any such ranking, there must be a key assumption on the use of nuke, or the absence of it.


With nukes counted (which is meanless btw in a real world coz evey country would be euqally powerful in the mist of nuclear winters ), there will be only 4 levels of rankings if forced to rank:


Level 1: Russia and the US. ( coz each can destroy the earth 10X times)

level 2: China ( coz almost can destroy the earth X times)

Above 3 are geograpghically large enough to have several 1000s or so survivors perhaps, or perhaps not even 5.

Level 3: UK France and Japan ( yes, Japan can produce more nukes in 1 month, if it wants to, than what UK and France putting together. And Japan has perhaps even superior long/ditance rocket-missile technogies than both UK and France) - the problem of these 3 is that they are geographically too small to sustain a simple round of nuke attack by Level 1 and Level 2 players.

Level 4: all the rest.




°°°°°°



A much more seriously ranking is, however, the ranking without nukes. That is the reality. And plus 1 more critical assumption:

in a war (when such a ranking has any sense at all) one country just can't import weapons - ammunitions at its will, because

1. it is illogical, e.g. how the heck India is supposed to rank above France when these 2 are at war when a huge part of India´s `superior` weapons are imported from France and France´s allies England and USA? In a war, you can not import your logistics. If one is incapable of building and maintaining elementary logistics abc projects such as toilets and sawege systems, one is incapable of handling logistics properly in a much distressed scenarios such as in wars. Simples! Remember, In a war a country is largely on its own when measuring its military powess as we do now.


So, the ranking is therefore the true and real war potential-capability of a standalone nation with all its tech, industries, economy, and without doubt the most importantly its people, not only the numbers, but also sheer determination, spirit, level of discipline, industrialness, endurance, and unity of all of them:

1. China, US : without nukes, they ´re about even . US is superior at Air-Sea, while China is superior at land-coast. If the war takes place between the two at a place near China proper, China is likely to win, whereas when it takes place far from China, the US would have a upper hand.

2. Russia: can´t beat the US in quality. can´t beat China in quantity and perhaps also much of the quality at the moment. The industrial might of today´s Russia is 1 full league behind both China and USA.

3. Japan ( the sheer size and sophitication of Japanese indudstries could turn it into a military great power given a short notice. It would most likley loss to Russia because the later has a much greater geo size advantage)

4. France ( not convincingly though, due to these `cheese-eating surrender monkeys` seem to have never won a decent war along since Napoleon despite of possessing many advantages)

5. UK

6. Germany ( may switch the rank with France to be #4, due to the same reason as 3)

7. Italy

8. Spain

9. South Korea

10, North Korea

11. Iran / Turkey / Taiwan

Post reported for racist, demeaning attacks and trolling. @Emmie Mate, have a look at the posts made by this poster. Qualifies a straight ban, IMO.

 

[Speeder 2]

Post reported for racist, demeaning attacks and trolling. @Emmie Mate, have a look at the posts made by this poster. Qualifies a straight ban, IMO.

you are a racist instead. have you stringed a logical sentence together to make any sense contributing to the forum, ever? Your low IQ trolling post is offensive to intelligence and is reported.

 

[Indischer]

you are a racist instead. have you stringed a logical sentence together to make any sense contributing to the forum, ever? Your low IQ post is offensive to intelligence and is reported.

@Aeronaut Have a looksy at his post history mate. I believe he has never contributed anything positively in any thread.

 

[Ceonwulf]

The OP is bullshit, which has IQ of 32 or even less. Period. \

-- no wonder, comes straight from Yahoo India.


For any such ranking, there must be a key assumption on the use of nuke, or the absence of it.


With nukes counted (which is meanless btw in a real world coz evey country would be euqally powerful in the mist of nuclear winters ), there will be only 4 levels of rankings if forced to rank:


Level 1: Russia and the US. ( coz each can destroy the earth 10X times)

level 2: China ( coz almost can destroy the earth X times)

Above 3 are geograpghically large enough to have several 1000s or so survivors perhaps, or perhaps not even 5.

Level 3: UK France and Japan ( yes, Japan can produce more nukes in 1 month, if it wants to, than what UK and France putting together. And Japan has perhaps even superior long/ditance rocket-missile technogies than both UK and France) - the problem of these 3 is that they are geographically too small to sustain a simple round of nuke attack by Level 1 and Level 2 players.

Level 4: all the rest.




°°°°°°



A much more seriously ranking is, however, the ranking without nukes. That is the reality. And plus 1 more critical assumption:

in a war (when such a ranking has any sense at all) one country just can't import weapons - ammunitions at its will, because

1. it is illogical, e.g. how the heck India is supposed to rank above France when these 2 are at war when a huge part of India´s `superior` weapons are imported from France and France´s allies England and USA? In a war, you can not import your logistics. If one is incapable of building and maintaining elementary logistics abc projects such as toilets and sawege systems, one is incapable of handling logistics properly in a much distressed scenarios such as in wars. Simples! Remember, In a war a country is largely on its own when measuring its military powess as we do now.


So, the ranking is therefore the true and real war potential-capability of a standalone nation with all its tech, industries, economy, and without doubt the most importantly its people, not only the numbers, but also sheer determination, spirit, level of discipline, industrialness, endurance, and unity of all of them:

1. China, US : without nukes, they ´re about even . US is superior at Air-Sea, while China is superior at land-coast. If the war takes place between the two at a place near China proper, China is likely to win, whereas when it takes place far from China, the US would have a upper hand.

2. Russia: can´t beat the US in quality. can´t beat China in quantity and perhaps also much of the quality at the moment. The industrial might, one of the main drivers of a powerful military, of today´s Russia is 1 full league behind both China and USA.

3. Japan ( the sheer size and sophitication of Japanese indudstries could turn it into a military great power given a short notice. It would most likley loss to Russia because the later has a much greater geo size advantage)

4. France ( not convincingly though, due to these `cheese-eating surrender monkeys` seem to have never won a decent war along since Napoleon despite of possessing many advantages)

5. UK

6. Germany ( may switch the rank with France to be #4, due to the same reason as 3)

7. Italy

8. Spain

9. South Korea

10, North Korea (if NK were not starved as it is now it would probably rank above Italy)

11. Iran / Turkey / Taiwan

Enjoyed reading that, and pleased to see India is not listed in the top 10! India's peasant army of 1 million men doesn't make them a military power!

My ranking would be as follows:
1. USA
<--small gap-->
2. China
<--medium gap-->
3. Russia
<--tiny gap-->
4/5/6. UK/France/Japan
<--small gap-->
7. Germany
8. South Korea
9. Italy
10. Turkey
11. Pakistan
12/13. Canada/Australia

<--HUGE GAP-->

99. Luxembourg
<--big gap-->
100. India

India = dog shit

 

[500]

Enjoyed reading that, and pleased to see India is not listed in the top 10!

India's peasant army of 1 million men doesn't make them a military power!

No need to troll.

India has one of the larges and modern air forces in the world (Su-30MKI, Phalcon AEW&C, air tankers, UAVs).
India has one of the largest fleet of modern tanks in the world (much more T-90 than even Russia).
India has own produced and launched spy satellites.
India has a large fleet of modern submarines.
India has 2 aircraft carries.
India produces its modern frigates.
India has a nuclear capability and own produced SSBN.
India has huge population, territory and economy.

The biggest weakness of India that it has poor oversea capabilities unlike US, UK or France. But so does Russia, China, Japan, Germany.

 

[M.AsfandYar]

India has a large fleet of modern submarines.

India has 2 aircraft carries.

Are we suppose to laugh at these?

 

[k_arura]

Since when India become more powerful than France/UK/Germany etc?

Oh man, Indians and their gullibility when it comes to "ranking lists" ....They just need some reason to be happy...

Correct "ranking"

1- U.S
2- Russia
3- China
4- UK
5- France
6- India
7- Germany
8- Turkey
9- Pakistan
10- Japan/South Korea/Israel

But then, even my list is crappy if certain other standards are applied.

Basically, it is Russia, United States, and China (far but rising) who have most dominant militaries...

Other countries' military strength is relative to a lot of variables.

That is on 'paper' though...

In real world, militaries with most powerful weapons are the one's on top...

Hint: Nuclear ballistic missile armed militaries surpass all other militaries of world.

A minor correction with your highness' permission.

1) Pakistan




2) none/no comparison

Are we suppose to laugh at these?

Crying would be more appropriate given the asswhipping you got in 1971! And since then it has only gotten better

 

[Arya Desa]

Enjoyed reading that, and pleased to see India is not listed in the top 10! India's peasant army of 1 million men doesn't make them a military power!

My ranking would be as follows:
1. USA
<--small gap-->
2. China
<--medium gap-->
3. Russia
<--tiny gap-->
4/5/6. UK/France/Japan
<--small gap-->
7. Germany
8. South Korea
9. Italy
10. Turkey
11. Pakistan
12/13. Canada/Australia

<--HUGE GAP-->

99. Luxembourg
<--big gap-->
100. India

India = dog shit

Seeing as you people eat everything, India would be quite appetizing to you.

 

[500]

Are we suppose to laugh at these?

In terms of subs India is on 7th place in the world (after the nuclear club 5 and Japan).

Aircraft carriers:

INS Viraat (R22) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
INS Vikramaditya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Marshmallow]

1. The United States: The U.S. defense budget is $612 billion. Despite sequestration and other spending cuts, the United States spends more money on defense than the next ten highest spending countries combined.

America's biggest conventional military advantage is its fleet of 19 aircraft carriers , compared to 12 carriers operated by the rest of the world combined. These massive carriers allow the U.S. to set up forward operating bases anywhere and project power throughout the world.

The super power also has by far the most aircraft of any country, cutting-edge technology like the Navy's new rail gun, a large and well-trained human force — and that's not even counting the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

2. Russia: Two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's military is growing again. The Kremlin's military spending has increased by almost a third since 2008 and is expected to grow 44% more in the next three years. Today, the Russian defense budget stands at $76.6 billion.

Russia currently has 766,000 active frontline personnel with a reserve force of 2,485,000 personnel. These troops are backed up by 15,500 tanks, the largest tank force in the world. Russian soldiers generally receive relatively mediocre training, however, and their equipment, like that tank force, is aging.

3. China: China has embarked upon a relentless policy of massive military spending, with a 12.2% increase in spending over the past year. China's defense budget stands at $126 billion but could unofficially be higher, prompting concern across Asia as China attempts to project its power to settle border disputes with Japan and the Philippines.

The size of the Chinese army is staggering, with 2,285,000 active frontline personnel with an additional 2,300,000 in the reserves. China also has a history of successfully stealing sensitive military technology, such as recently acquiring sensitive information about the new F-35.
4. India: India's defense spending is expected to rise as it pursues a modernization drive. Currently, it is estimated that India only spends $46 billion on its budget, and it is slated to become the fourth highest spender by 2020. It is already the world's largest importer of military goods.

India has ballistic missiles with a range capable of hitting all of Pakistan or most of China. Indian military strategy has been dominated by its long-simmering conflict with Pakistan, although there have also been minor wars between China and India in the past.
5. The United Kingdom:
British Army Corporal Birendra Limbu of the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles, shows his rifle to Afghan children as he secures an area near an Afghan National Police (ANP) checkpoint outside the town of Lashkar Gah in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, July 13, 2011.

The U.K. is planning on reducing the size of its armed forces by 20% between 2010 and 2018, with smaller cuts to the Royal Navy and RAF. The defense budget stands at $54 billion.

Despite scaling back, the U.K. counts on being able to project its power around the world. The Royal Navy is planning on putting the HMS Queen Elizabeth, an aircraft carrier that has a flight deck measuring at 4.5 acres, into service in 2020. The Queen Elizabeth is planned to carry 40 F-35B joint strike fighters around the world. Thanks to superior training and equipment, Britain could still hold an advantage over emerging powers like China, according to a leading think tank.

6. France:
French soldiers stand on a street during a patrol ahead of Sunday's presidential election in Timbuktu, July 25, 2013.

France effectively froze its military spending in 2013 while cutting 10% of its defense jobs in an effort to save money for purchasing high-tech equipment. The country spends $43 billion a year on defense, which is 1.9% of its GDP, below the spending target set by NATO for member countries.

Despite a leveling off of its military budget, France is still highly capable of projecting force around the globe, with significant deployments in the Central African Republic, Chad, Mali, Senegal and elsewhere around the world.
7. Germany:

German military strength falls short of its economic strength on the world stage. Recently, Germany has started considering offering military support to eastern European NATO members. It has also considered a more active international role militarily. Germany spends $45 billion on its military annually, making it the eighth largest spender in the world.

Following the aftermath of World War II, the German population generally became anti-war. The German military was originally limited to a defense force, but has become more accustomed to taking an active international role following the breakup of Yugoslavia. Germany only has 183,000 active frontline personnel with an additional 145,000 members in the reserves. Germany eliminated mandatory service in 2011 in an attempt to create a professional army.
8. Turkey:

Turkish military spending is expected to rise 9.4% in 2014 over the 2013 budget. The ongoing conflict in Syria and possible clashes with the Kurdish separatist organization, the PKK, were key reasons for the spending increase. Turkey's defense budget stands at $18.2 billion.

The NATO member has contributed soldiers to various initiatives around the world. The Turkish military took part in operations in Afghanistan, as well as in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. Turkey also maintains a large military force in Northern Cyprus.
9. South Korea:

South Korea has been increasing its defense spending due to both the increasing armament of Japan and China, and the constant threat from North Korea. South Korea spends $34 billion on defense.

South Korea has a relatively large military force for its small size. It has 640,000 active personnel with an additional 2,900,000 personnel in the reserves. South Korea also has 2,346 tanks and 1,393 aircraft. The South Korean military is generally well-trained and routinely takes part in military exercise with the United States. South Korea's air force is also the sixth largest in the world.
10. Japan:
Japan increased its defense spending for the first time in 11 years in response to growing disputes with China. It has also started its first military expansion in over 40 years by placing a new military base on its outer islands. Japan spends $49.1 billion on defense, the sixth most in the world.

Japan's military is fairly well-equipped. It currently has 247,000 active personnel with an additional 57,900 in reserve. Japan also has 1,595 aircraft, the world's fifth largest air force, and 131 ships. Japan's military is limited by a peace clause in the constitution that makes it illegal for the country to have an offensive army. Image: US Army
11. Israel:
Israel spends significantly more than its neighbors proportionally for defense. In 2009, Israel spent 18.7% of its national budget on defense. Israel's defense budget stands at $15 billion.

A large percentage of the Israeli defense budget goes toward defense technology. One of the best examples of this is Israel's Iron Dome, a missile defense shield that can intercept rockets shot into Israel from the Palestinian territories. Israel aims to replace Iron Dome with a laser defense shield called Iron Beam.

11. Israel | The 11 most powerful militaries in the world - Yahoo News India

where is Pakistan?