Top World Militaries

[Vonz90]

There are two ways to look at the question. How are they now vs what is their total military potential.

In the second sense, the traditional military powers of Europe (Britain, France, Germany) could arm up to the same ball park as us now in relatively short order (say less than ten years) if they had the political will/necessity to do so.

Actually Germany might have a small advantage in that regard as they are not carrying much debt.

The problems that China and Russia have are that they probably do not have enough excess economic ability to push to far past their current capabilities. This may change relative to China (assuming one actually believes Chinese growth numbers, which I don't) but that is highly speculative.

The other "big" third tier players are also close to their maximums. Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, India: if it is not a problem that can be solved by throwing a bunch of (relatively poorly trained) people at it, then it cannot solved it by them.

We, on the other hand, are not anywhere close to our maximum military potential. The main problem we would have in getting there is debt, but we owe money in $$$ and we print $$$, so we have that advantage.

[skb12172]

When you say Europe could get to our ballpark in less than ten years, do you mean an alliance of those nations or each nation, individually?

[Greg]

When you say Europe could get to our ballpark in less than ten years, do you mean an alliance of those nations or each nation, individually?

Yes. Either, or. Match us in quality individually, or quality and quantity collectively.

Though as said we are nowhere near our potential. If we just went back to spending similar percentages of GDP on entitlements and defense as, say, JFK.....

[Vonz90]

When you say Europe could get to our ballpark in less than ten years, do you mean an alliance of those nations or each nation, individually?

I would agree with Greg, either/or. The key point is that I am talking "ballpark" - not an exact match to us.

To break it out a bit, and to over simplify things a bit since I'm not writing an book/article. Our capabilities can be generally put in several buckets:


1. Nuclear deterrent
2. World wide satellite coverage (coms, spy, navigation)
3. Land forces 10+ Army divisions and 2+ Marine divisions
4. Air forces (all services) 2.5K fighters, 2.5K attack, 5K transport, 13k helo of all types.
5. Navy - about 450 ships, 10 carriers, 73 subs, etc....
6. Sea lift - not enough but not nothing

If you look at each country, could they replicate (ballpark, not exactly) what we have in ten years? I'll throw Japan in their to.

Britain: 1-Yes, 2-N except perhaps through Euro consortium, 3-Yes, 4-Maybe, 5-close but could not afford all of the carriers/subs. 6-yes

France: 1-Yes, 2-N except perhaps through Euro consortium, 3-Yes, 4-Maybe, 5-close but could not afford all of the carriers/subs. 6-yes

Germany: 1-Yes for nukes in general, I'm not sure how long it would take them to put together a full deterrent, 2-N except perhaps through Euro consortium, 3-Yes, 4-Maybe, 5-they could afford it, but there is no way I could envision them going that big. 6-yes

Japan: 1-Yes for nukes in general, I'm not sure how long it would take them to put together a full deterrent, 2-No, but they could do a significant system, 3-Yes, 4-Maybe, 5-they could expand a lot, but I don't think they could afford a full capability. 6-yes

So if each of the countries above put together a force of 12 of so divisions with 2k plus tanks, 3K+ fixed wing combat aircraft, 250+ ship navy including 3+ carriers and 25+ subs some non-zero nuclear deterrent (France and Britain already have that) and some significant sea lift - they could do that in 10 years or so and be very big players by world standards and have enough force projection capability to be reckoned with. The space part would be very difficult, but that could be worked around for most applications. This would not be a major hardship on them, they have had ground militaries bigger than that in my lifetime (except for Japan) and Navies in that ballpark as well (except for Germany).

If did as above and then also worked together, they would collectively be a very big gorilla.

The issue is that they do not have the will nor do they see a need. I suspect that is changing but time will tell.

[skb12172]

Which goes with an article I read in the mid 80s. It predicted an eventual economic collapse of the USSR, with the next use of nuclear weapons being the USA in a war with a (mostly) united Western Europe.

[HTRN]

We, on the other hand, are not anywhere close to our maximum military potential.

We are the largest of the first world nations in terms of population. Third largest overall.
We are the largest nation in the world in terms of GDP.

In WW2, we put 13% of our population in uniform. I suspect we could do higher than that today, because of the overall better health of the population compared to then. 13% of our current population is 40 million plus.

[Vonz90]

Which goes with an article I read in the mid 80s. It predicted an eventual economic collapse of the USSR, with the next use of nuclear weapons being the USA in a war with a (mostly) united Western Europe.

I disagree with that thesis entirely. I think our strategic interests and those of Britain, France, Germany and Japan are very closely linked and it would be very much to the good if they had more robust strategic abilities.

[D5CAV]

Yes... The next global war, no matter the larger context, will almost certainly begin in central Asia, in the intersetion between Russia, the former soviet republics, the organized Islamic states, India, and China.

The likliehood of it being anywhere else.... Though inciting incidents may begin elsewhere... Very low.

yup. It used to be called " the great game".

My bet is on the part of the Hindu Kush where China, India and Pakistan share borders. Border incursions are so common, they are almost training exercises. Periodic artillery duels barely make the local papers.

I would rate India and Pakistan as number 4 and 5 militaries, after US, China and Russia.

China and India have the two largest populations, and Pakistan is the second largest Muslim country. All have less water per capita than the US, Russia and Europe. Control of the Himalayas means control of water. As they used to say in Texas, "whiskey is for drinking over , water is for fighting over."

All three are nuclear powers. If it ever got beyond burning off past "sell-by-date" munitions, it could get very interesting very fast.

[skb12172]

At what point would we stick our noses in? Would we be on the wrong side, as often happens?

Would it be a free for all or would there be some kind of alliance against someone else? Who else would jump in as an ally of those three parties?

Fire Away!

[HTRN]

My bet is on the part of the Hindu Kush where China, India and Pakistan share borders.

This. In fact, the only other possible sparkoff point is the North Koreans, but they've been unusually amiable lately(rumor has Un has been wacking all the hardliners and anybody and everybody who can possibly threaten his position)