Top 10 military powers TOPYAPS

[Obambam]

Also does not say that the four countries will evolve into a military alliance either. I doubt that the four even associate themselves with those initials.

Your doubts has little value to the destiny of the BRIC nations. You are entitled to doubting it of course.

You mean like how 'mighty' China can only afford to pick fights with internally dissatisfied monks and its own disaffected citizens? And when faced against a quasi-independent Taiwan, China could not nothing? And when 'mighty' China actually fought against a smaller country (Viet Nam) the PLA got an unexpected bloody nose?

So now you are comparing NATO to 'China'? Genius..
So America can be compared with SCO or BRIC now eh? This is a Country to country comparison my friend. Is it really that hard for you to grasp? If it is the interest of OP to have comparisons of alliance, then it would make sense for the topic to be somewhere along the lines of 'Top Military Alliance'?

The intensity of the military actions are dictated by certain political goals, which can be a response to a threat or as an assignment from a political goal, the latter is Libya. So it is wrong to take the limited military actions in Libya as indicative of NATO's overall military capability. And when an alliance contains a member (US) whose military prowess eclipsed that of all other members' combined, it even make more sense to be cautious in assessing the alliance's military capability. NATO did not dissolved at the collapse of the Soviet Union. Alliance members recognized that even without a threat like the Warsaw Pact, this military centric alliance can still serve as a useful deterrent against potential threats or to keep the peace in its own backyard like the war in Yugoslavia.

To serve as a deterrent, yes. To pick fight with a big power, no. Their unity is questionable and their fluctuating power to fight countries such as India, Russia or China is laughable to say the least.

This is why I still dismiss NATO here and still regards Israel as the weaker military power when compared to India and Russia.

 

[aatayyab]

Top 10s seem misleading. I'd say, put it like this:

Top level: US - superpower
2nd level: China Russia - can't be militarily conquered due to resources, technology, military quantity, and geography
3rd level: France UK India, Pakistan - has 1 weakness out of resources, technology, military quantity, or geography
4th level: Japan Germany Israel South Korea - has 2 weakness out of resources, technology, military quantity, or geography

This is more reliable.

This guy tried to be realistic, now let me have my own shot at being more realistic than him/her;

Top level: God (Allah, Bhagwan, Jesus, etc) - superpower

2nd level: USA, China, Russia, France, UK, Pakistan, India and Israel - just because they can literally annihilate themselves and others (starting a chain reaction)

3rd level: The rest of the peaceful world - the ones who "opted" to invest their resources towards their own people's welfare, in addition to being prepared for any such internal/external threat

anyone else?

 

[gambit]

Your doubts has little value to the destiny of the BRIC nations. You are entitled to doubting it of course.

Neither does your speculation that Brazil, Russia, India, and China will form a military-centric or even an economic-centric bloc. The EU is both. Why? Because the European nations have a long history together, from war and peace, against enemies without and against each other. Their cultures easily intermix and have. Sorry...But my doubts regarding the BRIC countries being in an alliance is more valid than your hope of them being in the same.

So now you are comparing NATO to 'China'? genius.

Absolutely...And it does not take a genius to make the comparison. If China has any 'issue' with a NATO member that could lead to a military confrontation, China must view that member in the NATO context.

How about we compare SCO or BRIC with America?

Sure you can...But no one is going take you seriously.

...who is still trapped inside Iraq and Afghanistan and is now taking the back seat on Libya?

None of those have any bearing on the military might of the US.

To serve as a deterrent, yes. To pick fight with a big power, no. Their unity is questionable and their fluctuaing power to fight countries such as India, Russia or China is laughable to say the least.

NATO unity is not questionable. Their contribution to any military venture may be questionable and fluctuating, but not their commitment to the alliance. Show me one withdrawal from NATO and why.

 

[Obambam]

Neither does your speculation that Brazil, Russia, India, and China will form a military-centric or even an economic-centric bloc. The EU is both. Why? Because the European nations have a long history together, from war and peace, against enemies without and against each other. Their cultures easily intermix and have. Sorry...But my doubts regarding the BRIC countries being in an alliance is more valid than your hope of them being in the same.

As said before, bottom line is, your doubts and now hopes has little value of the destiny of the BRIC nations. You are entitled to having such doubts though. Makes no difference to what happens in the real world.

Absolutely...And it does not take a genius to make the comparison. If China has any 'issue' with a NATO member that could lead to a military confrontation, China must view that member in the NATO context.

The only issue China has with them is helping them recover from the financial turmoil left behind by the wall street regime. Besides, NATO is nothing more than a deterrent. If it takes '28 independent member countries' to achieve a similar defensive policy of just one Power such as Russia, India and China, then that is a telling sign of their individual military power alone.

Sure you can...But no one is going take you seriously.

They will take me as seriously as the person who is trying to compare 28 countries to 1.

None of those have any bearing on the military might of the US.

Then its 'might' is questionable.

NATO unity is not questionable. Their contribution to any military venture may be questionable and fluctuating, but not their commitment to the alliance. Show me one withdrawal from NATO and why.

The point isn't about the withdrawal of NATO because I am not qustionaing about their commitment in war against small countries. I am talking about the will to participate unilaterally against nation such as India, Russia and China.

This is why I still dismiss NATO here and still regards Israel as the weaker military power when compared to India and Russia.

 

[Speeder 2]

Top 10s seem misleading. I'd say, put it like this:

Top level: US - superpower
2nd level: China Russia India - can't be militarily conquered due to resources, technology, military quantity, and geography
3rd level: France UK - has 1 weakness out of resources, technology, military quantity, or geography
4th level: Japan Germany Israel Pakistan South Korea - has 2 weakness out of resources, technology, military quantity, or geography

Rest don't matter.

"India - can't be militarily conquered due to resources, technology, military quantity, and geography..."

Give me a break!

The UK can colonise India for the second time if they fancy.

In a (conventional) war, do you seriously think that French airforce/ Navy/ Army can't beat India with ease?

Japan and Germany can destroy India in a ( conventional) war at any day of a year, even with their limited self-denfence units.


Top millitary powers:

1. USA

2.China & Russia

4. Japan ( world's 2nd most advanced navy; its army is as fearsome as anyone at the top table)

5. Germany (the Germans never lost to the French in a serious fight in recent history; most folks in Europe know that)


( Both Japan and Germany are hugely underestimated by the world. Both of them have some of the best navies out there, USA aside; both armies are very high tech and numerous; both can produce 4th gen warplanes if required; both can chunk out very powerful nukes and accurate delivery systems in a matter of months. They, in my book, are undoubtedly the next 2 super millitary powers after the the BIG 3 : USA, China and Russia, who are too big to be conquered. India is not big, geographically speaking, it's only populous and the most hyped).

6. France & the UK

8. Israel, Spain, Italy ( the board is underestimating Spain and Italy, both of them are very advanced naval powers, with world class quality airforces)

Any country that doesn't know how to produce its won gears, even its own rifles and bullets, has no place in world top 10!

It's because in a war the opponents won't sell you rifles & bullets, let alone warships, warplanes & missiles...




Let alone Japan, Germany, the UK, France and Israel, with a highly trained army, airforce (Eurofighter), aircraft carriers & naval destroyers, both Spain and Italy can decimate India without too much fuss in an all out war (even Royal Dutch Navy and Airforce could do so yet Dutch army is way too smaller, not weaker though, in comparison to India...).


India is out of top 10, no doubt !


.

 

[rockstarIN]

^^emotional count uh?

 

[gambit]

As said before, bottom line is, your doubts and now hopes has little value of the destiny of the BRIC nations. You are entitled to having such doubts though. Makes no difference to what happens in the real world.

You are entitled to you hope as I am to my doubt. But the 'real world' is not conducive for a military alliance among Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Not when there is tension between China and India. Not when Russia is no longer a global projection capable power.

The only issue China has with them is helping them recover from the financial turmoil left behind by the wall street regime. Besides, NATO is nothing more than a deterrent. If it takes '28 independent member countries' to achieve a similar defensive policy of just one Power such as Russia, India and China, then that is a telling sign of their individual military power alone.

Any alliance carries obligations, so before there can be a military alliance between two or more countries, each country must assess its own ability to contribute to a military venture. Can China come to Libya's aid? Why not? Because China cannot. Combined capabilities, diverse as they may be, will always give potential adversaries pause before committing to a venture where militaries will clash. Your casual dismissal of the deterrence factor is nothing more than a serious lack of understanding of military history.

They will take me as seriously as the person who is trying to compare 28 countries to 1.

You wish.

Then its 'might' is questionable.

Sure...China can try to convince others the American military might is 'questionable'. And you expect others to take you seriously?

The point isn't about the withdrawal of NATO because I am not qustionaing about their commitment in war against small countries. I am talking about the will to participate unilaterally against nation such as India, Russia and China.

The question of 'will' is a matter of politics. The question of capability is within this discussion. An alliance like NATO will be quite capable of handling China.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

"India - can't be militarily conquered due to resources, technology, military quantity, and geography..."

Give me a break!

The UK can colonise India for the second time if they fancy.

In a (conventional) war, do you seriously think that French airforce/ Navy/ Army can't beat India with ease?

Japan and Germany can destroy India in a ( conventional) war at any day of a year, even with their limited self-denfence units.


Top millitary powers:

1. USA

2.China & Russia

4. Japan ( world's 2nd most advanced navy; its army is as fearsome as anyone)

5. Germany (the Germans never lost to the French in a serious fight in recent history; most folks in Europe know that)


( Both Japan and Germany are hugely underestimated by the world. Both of them have some of the best navies out there, USA aside; both armies are very high tech and numerous; both can produce 4th gen warplanes if required; both can chunk out very powerful nukes and accurate delivery systems in a matter of months. They, in my book, are undoubtedly the next 2 super millitary powers after the the BIG 3 : USA, China and Russia, who are too big to be conquered. India is not big, geographically speaking, it's only populous and the most hyped).

6. France & the UK

8. Israel, Spain, Italy ( the board is underestimating Spain and Italy, both of them are very advanced naval powers, with world class quality airforces)

Any country that doesn't know how to produce its won gears, even its own rifles and bullets, has no place in world top 10!

It's because in a war the opponents won't sell you rifles & bullets, let alone warships, warplanes & missiles...




Let alone Japan, Germany, the UK, France and Israel, with a highly trained army, airforce (Eurofighter), aircraft carriers & naval destroyers, both Spain and Italy can decimate India without too much fuss in an all out war (even Royal Dutch Navy and Airforce could do so yet Dutch army is way too smaller, not weaker though, in comparison to India...).


India is out of top 10, no doubt !


.

 

[Manticore]

the nuclear powers with competitive nuclear delivery systems are a CLASS APART-

from the rest of the world, its difficult to make top ten--

some countries have less coastal line so need less navy/
self sufficiency from bullets/guns/tanks/basic fighters/
mobilization time with respect to there enemies
how many exercises / wars / internal wars have they participated in this decade
training
ambition/luck
night time capability
precision strike/ standoff weapons
numbers of personal
early warning systems
air refuellers
mechanized battalions
terrain
---
and i'm sure ive left out 90% of the factors.. just goes to show how difficult is to actually make a practical list-- and yes, also u need the latest accurate stats of every country , not speculations , and certainly not comparing 2004 stats of one country to 2011 stats of another country!

 

[Obambam]

You are entitled to you hope as I am to my doubt. But the 'real world' is not conducive for a military alliance among Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Not when there is tension between China and India. Not when Russia is no longer a global projection capable power.

Likewise for yourself. You are entitled to your hope and your doubts as I am to my doubt of your prophecies for the destiny of the BRIC nations.

Tensions can be resolved and military projection can be nurtured. Theoretically speaking, there is nothing to prevent their common economical interest from eventually paving way for cooperation in a military scale.

Any alliance carries obligations, so before there can be a military alliance between two or more countries, each country must assess its own ability to contribute to a military venture. Can China come to Libya's aid? Why not? Because China cannot. Combined capabilities, diverse as they may be, will always give potential adversaries pause before committing to a venture where militaries will clash. Your casual dismissal of the deterrence factor is nothing more than a serious lack of understanding of military history.

You are now talking about their ability to contribute now? Seriously, who couldn't contribute? Anyone can surely contribute to something if they are willing (there is nothing to stop them if they wish to not particiapte though) i.e. contributing words of encouragement.

The points to discuss here are its 'level of unity' and the 'effectiveness of the combined effort to act as one entity'. Surely in the case of Libya, they are not putting in the same level of effort, therefore the full potential is not met. You can 'simplify' NATO and talk about its potential to perform as a block, but reality and its complexities stops them well short of reaching their full military potential. Key factors to take into considerations are its individual economy and society.

There is no need to talk about China aiding Libya, as military interventions isn't the only form of aid that one can provide. China is very happily seeing UK, France and America getting tangled up in another war. There is no stopping them should they wish to commit financial suicide on smaller countries.

Your casual dismissal of the countries such as India, Russia and China is nothing more than a serious lack of touch and understanding of the real world.

You wish.

It's not my wish but yours.

Sure...China can try to convince others the American military might is 'questionable'. And you expect others to take you seriously?

Sure..Gambit can try and convince others that invading a small country such as Iraq 'equates' to having the ability to invade countries such as 'India', 'Russia' and 'China'. And you expect others to take you seriously?

The question of 'will' is a matter of politics. The question of capability is within this discussion. An alliance like NATO will be quite capable of handling China.

Then the alliance of NATO is also quite capable of handling America. As 'the question of will' is 'only' a matter of politics and politics changes right?

The state of economy and unrest of society will not be the determining factor of its military capability is that so? I'd like to see your prophecy materialise, as of now the crux of your argument holds no water but to serve as a fuel to its own imagination.

Hence I still dismiss NATO here and still regards Israel as the weaker military power when compared to India and Russia.

 

[sanibhagwan]

"India - can't be militarily conquered due to resources, technology, military quantity, and geography..."

Give me a break!

The UK can colonise India for the second time if they fancy.

In a (conventional) war, do you seriously think that French airforce/ Navy/ Army can't beat India with ease?

Japan and Germany can destroy India in a ( conventional) war at any day of a year, even with their limited self-denfence units.


Top millitary powers:

1. USA

2.China & Russia

4. Japan ( world's 2nd most advanced navy; its army is as fearsome as anyone at the top table)

5. Germany (the Germans never lost to the French in a serious fight in recent history; most folks in Europe know that)


( Both Japan and Germany are hugely underestimated by the world. Both of them have some of the best navies out there, USA aside; both armies are very high tech and numerous; both can produce 4th gen warplanes if required; both can chunk out very powerful nukes and accurate delivery systems in a matter of months. They, in my book, are undoubtedly the next 2 super millitary powers after the the BIG 3 : USA, China and Russia, who are too big to be conquered. India is not big, geographically speaking, it's only populous and the most hyped).

6. France & the UK

8. Israel, Spain, Italy ( the board is underestimating Spain and Italy, both of them are very advanced naval powers, with world class quality airforces)

Any country that doesn't know how to produce its won gears, even its own rifles and bullets, has no place in world top 10!

It's because in a war the opponents won't sell you rifles & bullets, let alone warships, warplanes & missiles...




Let alone Japan, Germany, the UK, France and Israel, with a highly trained army, airforce (Eurofighter), aircraft carriers & naval destroyers, both Spain and Italy can decimate India without too much fuss in an all out war (even Royal Dutch Navy and Airforce could do so yet Dutch army is way too smaller, not weaker though, in comparison to India...).


India is out of top 10, no doubt !


.

Give me a break!

Please take a break, this thread was doing much better without you.

The UK can colonise India for the second time if they fancy.

Really, we are scared.

Japan and Germany can destroy India in a ( conventional) war at any day of a year, even with their limited self-denfence units.

But how? back up your claims with facts and figures

It's because in a war the opponents won't sell you rifles & bullets

The conflicting opponents sell each other rifles and bullets. Brilliant. This goes to show your knowledge.

Wait a minute. This should be a April fools day post which you missed by a couple of days.

 

[Speeder 2]

the nuclear powers with competitive nuclear delivery systems are a CLASS APART-

from the rest of the world, its difficult to make top ten--

some countries have less coastal line so need less navy/
self sufficiency from bullets/guns/tanks/basic fighters/
mobilization time with respect to there enemies
how many exercises / wars / internal wars have they participated in this decade
training
ambition/luck
night time capability
precision strike/ standoff weapons
numbers of personal
early warning systems
air refuellers
mechanized battalions
terrain
---
and i'm sure ive left out 90% of the factors.. just goes to show how difficult is to actually make a practical list-- and yes, also u need the latest accurate stats of every country , not speculations , and 2004 stats of one country and comparing it to 2011 stats of another country!

Still, one could roughly seperate and rank them into 4 categories, IMO.

1. BIG 3: USA, China, Russia

2. world class powers: Japan, Germany, France, UK

3. Regional Powers Plus : Italy, Spain, Isreal ( considering SP and IT each has 50m+ population , each could field a sizeble army)

4. Regional Powers Standard ( without particular order, some beeter at quality while other at quantity; some good at navy while other exclusively at army or airforce, but all in all at the similar general level):

Australia, South Korea, Brazil, India, Turkey, Canada, Pakistan, Greece, Iran, North Korea, ...


.

 

[Bhim]

Look at the time these guys taking to make up stories and type all this crap???

It seems there back side is really on...

 

[blackops]

Neither does your speculation that Brazil, Russia, India, and China will form a military-centric or even an economic-centric bloc. The EU is both. Why? Because the European nations have a long history together, from war and peace, against enemies without and against each other. Their cultures easily intermix and have. Sorry...But my doubts regarding the BRIC countries being in an alliance is more valid than your hope of them being in the same.

you never know but one thing is for sure these nations will play a big part in future india and china will sure resolve there dispute russia will stand up again and it has already started to do brazil has good relation with all 3 countries so dont be surprised to see these nation holding each others back

Absolutely...And it does not take a genius to make the comparison. If China has any 'issue' with a NATO member that could lead to a military confrontation, China must view that member in the NATO context.


Sure you can...But no one is going take you seriously.


None of those have any bearing on the military might of the US.


NATO unity is not questionable. Their contribution to any military venture may be questionable and fluctuating, but not their commitment to the alliance. Show me one withdrawal from NATO and why.

 

[Nirvana]

1 - United states of America - The superpower
LAND AREA (sq kms) = 9,826,630
MILITARY PERSONNEL = 1,385,000
Total No of Aircrafts = 22,700
Navy Ships = 1,600
Nuclear weapons = Yes
Military expenditure = 663,255,000,000 $

2. Russia -
LAND AREA (sq kms) = 17,075,200
MILITARY PERSONNEL = 1,245,000
Total No of Aircrafts = 6,500
Navy Ships = 525
Nuclear weapons = Yes
Military expenditure = 61,000,000,000

3. China -
LAND AREA (sq kms) = 9,596,960
MILITARY PERSONNEL = 2,255,000
Total No of Aircrafts = 2,400
Navy Ships = 760
Nuclear weapons = Yes
Military expenditure = 98,800,000,000

4.India -
LAND AREA (sq kms) = 3,287,590
MILITARY PERSONNEL = 1,325,000
Total No of Aircrafts = 1,250
Navy Ships = 145
Nuclear weapons = Yes
Military expenditure = 36,600,000,000

5.United Kingdom -
LAND AREA (sq kms) = 244,820
MILITARY PERSONNEL = 195,000
Total No of Aircrafts = 2,670
Navy Ships = 140
Nuclear weapons = Yes
Military expenditure = 69,271,000,000

6.France
LAND AREA (sq kms) = 643,427
MILITARY PERSONNEL = 225,000
Total No of Aircrafts = 1,900
Navy Ships = 135
Nuclear weapons = Yes
Military expenditure = 67,316,000,000

7.Germany -
LAND AREA (sq kms) = 357,021
MILITARY PERSONNEL = 250,000
Total No of Aircrafts = 1,100
Navy Ships = 130
Nuclear weapons = Nato's Nuclear weapons sharing.
Military expenditure = 48,022,000,000

8.Japan -
LAND AREA (sq kms) = 377,835
MILITARY PERSONNEL = 378,000
Total No of Aircrafts = 2,700
Navy Ships = 150
Nuclear weapons = No - But has capability Of producing Nuclear weapons.
Military expenditure = 46,859,000,000

9.Brazil -
LAND AREA (sq kms) = 8,511,965
MILITARY PERSONNEL = 287,000
Total No of Aircrafts = 1,650
Navy Ships = 90
Nuclear weapons = No - Have capability to Produce Nuclear Weapons.
Military expenditure = 27,124,000,000

Followed By - South Korea , Israel , Turkey , Italy , Pakistan , Iran ,North Korea , Mexico , Canada , Australia.