Top Ten

[MrConcerned]

EU's military is far better than China's. They just don't have the will to fund and use it properly.

Numbers mean nothing. India will be the most populous country in the world soon, does that mean they'll have the best military?

Iran's army has degraded over the years. The Iran-Iraq war showed how fast an army can fall.

 

[sigatoka]

Here are my ratings


5 China
Overall numbers and the possibility of nuclear capability rank China high on the list, but the fact remains that most of the force is untested in global conflicts, their equipment remains dated and forced conscription takes its toll.
10 UK
(Britain) Once a strong proud world power, the UK maintains a simple fighting force keeping the US as a major ally. It has allocated units in a few global hotspots.

China has more volunteer troops than than any other nation in the world.

Simple military? U.K. after U.S. has the most deployable military in the world.

 

[Owais]

EU's military is far better than China's. They just don't have the will to fund and use it properly.

Numbers mean nothing. India will be the most populous country in the world soon, does that mean they'll have the best military?

Iran's army has degraded over the years. The Iran-Iraq war showed how fast an army can fall.

china's military spending is $34 billion per year.
if numers didn't matter, then Iran would never be able to defend it self from US bcked iraq. now Iran is producing its own long/short range missiles.
also, the population of the country and the numers of trained solidjers in an army is totally diffrent things.

 

[sigatoka]

1. EU's military is far better than China's. They just don't have the will to fund and use it properly.

2. Numbers mean nothing. India will be the most populous country in the world soon, does that mean they'll have the best military?

3. Iran's army has degraded over the years. The Iran-Iraq war showed how fast an army can fall.

1. There is no EU military

2. Numbers do have meaning when the forces have roughly the same level of technology. A 10000 man army is not going to do well against an army of a 1,000,000

3. I dont know whether you could say Iran's army has degraded. Its structure has certainly changed with much less emphasis on Airforce and shift to ground based air defence. They have also spent a lot of resources on their ballistic missiles which currently are of very small value but if they develop nuclear weapons then that expenditure will have been very important.

When Pak. developed nukes the delivery system was still quite primitive. Iran will a much more robust delivery systems waiting for them if they do develop it than Pak. did.

 

[MrConcerned]

If China's military budget is 34 billion a year, my name is Simone.

A figure between 60 and 90 billion dollars is more accurate, including pensions, research and extraneous facilities the military controls.

I'll settle for 75. It's a formidable number, especially when they're not doing cutting edge research, excepted in limited amounts in avionics.

Wait till they can field a 300, 000 modern army first (500,000 was in the Gulf War). Numbers are important even with the same tech when you have the logistics.

 

[MrConcerned]

Iran's military during the Shah was a very proud professional force.

It had its failings but it resembled Turkey of today during its time - modern weapons, very proud, hardworking officers and many strong traditions.

During the Iran-Iraq they descended, when pressed, into theatre-sized human wave attacks, the most shameful of tactics, I believe, no matter who says.

It's only Iraq's incompetence that didn't see them gaining any ground at the end.

 

[sigatoka]

Wait till they can field a 300, 000 modern army first (500,000 was in the Gulf War). Numbers are important even with the same tech when you have the logistics.

They wont ever field an army of so low numbers because its inefficient. U.S. with far higher labour costs fields approx. 2million. You would expect China (with economy of around 55% size of U.S.)

China's labour cost is around 5000 a year vs U.s 45,000.

2,000,000 * 55% = 1, 100,000 (This is size China would field if equivalent labour costs to U.S. and proportionate to GDP)

However labour is 9 times cheaper in China then U.S.

1,100,000 * 9 = And you get a force of 9.9 million or even (6.3million see note below) (China fields approx 5m)

As you can clearly see, the Chinese military is reasonably small for the size of economy and the relative price of labour to capital.

(p.s. China spends a lower proportion of GDP on military than U.S. so the 9.9 million should come down to 6.3 million (assuming 2.5%gdp China/3.9% U.s = 0.65, 0.65*9mil = 6.3million )

But even then a force of 5 million is significantly lower than 6.3million.

 

[MrConcerned]

When I meant 300,000 I meant a force it can send over seas, equip and supply for a campaign. That's still a while yet.

No one can sustain a 9 million military, no matter how cheap the labour! Not unless you want them to be barely trained goons. It's not just money, it's also time, ability to control and manage, and also impact on the economy, impact from the land used, pensions etc. Military expenses are effectively sunk costs with little investment.

May I just point out that the true size of China's armed forces is hidden beyond its 2.3 million military. Most of the hundreds of thousands pared off were sent to teh Armed Police, which is another formidable force, plus there are many militias especially in Xinjiang and border areas. The true size of China's military, defined as trained men who can be ordered and managed in war, is larger than 2.3 million. (And 2.3 will become 2 by 2010 I think).

China spends 3 to 3.5 of its economy, it's fixed and aimed to be within range of the US. You must understand that the US has invested very widely over 5 decades and it's now reaping the rewards. Even if china spends 450 billion next year on the army there will be a huge gap between the two.

Especially war experience. United States generals are superb, not many know.

I think there was a study saying that the military advantage of the US over its nearest competitior is something in the value of tens of trillions.

 

[sigatoka]

1. Iran's military during the Shah was a very proud professional force.

2. It had its failings but it resembled Turkey of today during its time - modern weapons, very proud, hardworking officers and many strong traditions.

3. During the Iran-Iraq they descended, when pressed, into theatre-sized human wave attacks, the most shameful of tactics, I believe, no matter who says.

4. It's only Iraq's incompetence that didn't see them gaining any ground at the end.

1. Yes, they were proud protecting a shah who held massive parties with imported caviar and french wine while there were famines.

2. You miss an important point that the ratio of labour to capital has changed dramatically in Iran. Therefore they are fielding a bigger army with fewer capital (tanks, artillery, sor forth) than they used to. This is due to economic efficiency.

3. Saddam Hussein deliberately struck at the Iranians in their period of internal turmoil.

All the European nations did it in WW1. Theres nothing shameful in it unlike bombing civilians.

4. Those same remanants of the incompetent Iraqi army is preventing a superpower from achieving its goals.

 

[MrConcerned]

1. The Shah's behaviour is a completely different matter from what we're discussing.

2. The fact is that Iran's army, guerilla attacks aside, will be defeated by any reasonably sized modern army well trained with Western weapons. Even Israel can defeat Iran today I think (hypothetical).

3. Saddam Hussein did, but the turmoil also showed how far Iran's military had fallen and how many of its best talent fled or were imprisoned or killed.

4. That was 90 years ago. They still had calvary units then. And people like Petain were slammed for human wave attacks even at that time. There is everything shameful and shows a army bankrupt of ideas, weapons and concern for its followers. There is nothing wrong with guerilla warfare (not terrorism) but human wave attacks on a consistent basis no matter the battlefield requirements is something awful.

5. Iraq today is like the Superbowl of radical militarism and in some parts, terrorism. I would say that 130,000 holding down 25 million people, and having more support than the terrorists (otherwise they could not stay there for sure), is pretty good, wouldn't you say, given the hundreds of thousands of say Indian troops in Kashmir, with 1/6 the area and 1/6 the population.

 

[sigatoka]

1. China spends 3 to 3.5 of its economy, it's fixed and aimed to be within range of the US.

2. You must understand that the US has invested very widely over 5 decades and it's now reaping the rewards. Even if china spends 450 billion next year on the army there will be a huge gap between the two.

1. False, highest estimates are of 2.5%

2. True, even when China and U.S. start spending same amount it will take few years before their capabilities equalise.

 

[MrConcerned]

1. okay, that's fair. I'm inclined to think its 3 though. It makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, for example they increased their budget this year by 16 + 10 per cent, because they had revalued their economy up by 16 as well as the normal 10 per cent growth last year. It has to operate by a fixed percentage of the economy.

If China could become democratic, I think there's nothing to stop it and America (and Pakistan) to become firm friends.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

It's only Iraq's incompetence that didn't see them gaining any ground at the end.

Your history is flawed. At the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqis gained conventional superiority and drove the Iranians from their territory, especially around Basra.

That coupled with the liberal usage of chems convinced the Iranians to sue for peace.

The true size of China's military, defined as trained men who can be ordered and managed in war, is larger than 2.3 million. (And 2.3 will become 2 by 2010 I think).

Extremely misleading. The PLA is currently divided into two categories (the RRF units and the regular units), previously called the Cat A and B units. The RRF is something like 10 divisions. The rest are mainly garrison troops; mainly for a political purpose as to establish a CCP presence within the region than to set a military asset.

The PLA is extremely bloated. Colonel Denis Blasko stated that the PLA can be reduced by half and not lose any combat capability.

Also, there is a difference between Chinese troops and Western troops and even between Chinese troops and Indian troops. The basic PLA service term is 2 years. The basic Western contract is 4 years. A 2 year conscript does not usually match a 4 year recruit.

China's claim to any military list are its nukes.

 

[Owais]

If China's military budget is 34 billion a year, my name is Simone.

.

it is...
I am giving you exact offical figures dear.

 

[Neo]

it is...
I am giving you exact offical figures dear.

Thats the official figure provided by Beijing, in reality its more than double that figure and indeed close to $75 billion.