The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Top Ten Armies of the World
Arditi    3/4/2004 3:54:10 PM
According to the CIA and other Intelligence Services (European, Asian, African) this is the tally - based on a Combination of Manpower, Technology, Firepower, Training, Resources, Available Reserves, and Nuclear Potential (Current or Likely):
1. USA
2. China
3. Germany
4. India
5. France
6. Russia
7. UK
8. Italy
9. Israel
10. Pakistan
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
french stratege       5/3/2009 12:10:08 PM
Seriously Herald, I know you like British, but I'm not misunformed or biased.
 
UK has no fully independant strategic forces or strategic planning capabilties, or any capability to project a minimum of air power without agreement of a local partner against a country with a raisonable number of air superiority fighters, and this until 2017 (time needeed for 2 carriers with a minimum number of F35).
 
UK has chosen a deep partnership with USA since Suez Crisis in 1956.
It can make sense, UK has given proofs like in 2003 to be a US reliable partner, but it not a fully independant capability.
If USA says no to Brtish, you don't go or we stop our relationship and BTW we stop to maintain your deterrent (i.e the Trident 2), there is a huge problem for UK.
UK stil retains some means to be able break relationship with USA (see the F35 drama) but it would be painfully.
 
See what top British officers  (no less than the former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals) says:
 
"We don't own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without having the clearance of the United States," he said.

The letter stated: "This force cannot be seen as independent of the United States in any meaningful sense. It relies on the United States for the provision and regular servicing of the D5 missiles.

"While this country has, in theory, freedom of action over giving the order to fire, it is unthinkable that, because of the catastrophic consequences for guilty and innocent alike, these weapons would ever be launched, or seriously threatened, without the backing and support of the United States."
 
The problem that those officers which are focused on conventional capabilities don"t see, is that a country without the backing of its national deterrent can be blackmailed like in 1956 by a nuclear power who would not appreciate military intervention of UK.
UK has chosen after 1956 a limited deterrent capability based on US help, but since depends of US support.
If they remove this US support , British are naked in front of independant nuclear powers and now there is several more nuclear power including non declared nuclear powers.
If they expect a nuclear protection in case of blackmail, they come back at the same point.
France has choosen to stay able to act independantly and we are very proud of it.
You are misunformed Herald.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/3/2009 12:33:03 PM
Not only France has capability to project overseas a force similar to UK, with the bonus of a real carrier with real air superiorty fighter while UK has not this capability until 2017, but we have a real capability agaisnt major powers thank to our deterrent.
It is why we spend 30 Billions euros  in the last 10 years to modernize our deterrent.
Equivalent of 10 aircraft carrier in price.
To insure that our subs are silent enough even versus an hunting from Russia or even USA (who would try to impeach use of our nukes against a country)
To insure that our second capability (airborne) can penetrate any defense (ASMP-A) and can be used in a massive counterforce strike against ennemi air force, land force, naval base and major warships.
 
Don't make any error.
If France decide to act against India or Pakistan, Iran or even North Korea, we can, even USA or Russia would not agree.
We can send 60 * 300 kts warheads on their air bases and naval bases,  or amy depots, while keeping our 3 active SLBM (in time of crisis) ready to deter an third party like a nuclear superpower.
India or Pakistan can not retaliate on us.
Then finish them on conventional forces while they would not have enough air power remaining agaisnt our single carrier.
UK can not implement those strategy since UK has no potent tactical warheads, no conventional carrier and depends on US approval for its deterrent.
Of course using nuclear power from France needs a strong reason.A very important reason.
But make no mistake, we can use it.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/3/2009 12:44:55 PM
Russia may have much more nukes than us, but they are completely unable to project a small decent fighting force in Africa, Indian ocean or south America.They can act only in vicinity of their borders like in Georgia.
And their second strike deterrent is not better than us since their SLBM subs are quite noisy (when they have a decent number to be operationnal).On second strike deterrent their Topol land based mobile missiles force, is probably their most capable force.
Same for Chinese which have even less nukes than France.
And if we are not ready to use our nukes, we would ramp up for full conventional war like USA in 1941 behind our nuclear shield.
We have design for all kind of weapons used in a conventional conflict and GDP, and financial reserve and manpower for that.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/3/2009 1:19:24 PM
Read
We can send 60 * 300 kts (ASMP) warheads on their air bases and naval bases,  or amy depots, while keeping our 3 active SLBM SSBN (in time of crisis) ready to deter an third party like a nuclear superpower.
A single of our SSBN can wipe out 96 high value military or industrial targets and we still have two to prevent retaliation on Paris and our civilians.
 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot       5/4/2009 11:07:08 AM
Some numbers:
 
Weapon Exports:
 
Supplier  &S595; 2000  &S595; 2001  &S595; 2002  &S595; 2003  &S595; 2004  &S595; 2005  &S595; 2006  &S595; 2007  &S595;
Flag of the United States USA 7505 5801 4984 5581 6616 7026 7821 7454
Flag of Russia Russia 4190 5631 5458 5355 6400 5576 6463 4588
Flag of Germany Germany 1622 825 910 1707 1017 1879 2891 3395
Flag of France France 1033 1235 1342 1313 2267 1688 1586 2690
Flag of the Netherlands Netherlands 259 192 243 342 218 611 1575 1355
Flag of the United Kingdom UK 1356 1116 772 624 1143 871 978 1151
 
Military Expeditures (2006)
 
Rank
Country Spending ($b.)  %GDP[3]
?
World Total 1,158[4] 2.41
1 Flag of the United States United States 985.7 12.99
2 Flag of the United Kingdom United Kingdom 59.2 2.49
3 Flag of France France 53.1 2.38
4 Flag of the People's Republic of China People's Republic of China 49.5[1] 1.88
5 Flag of Japan Japan 43.7 1.00
6 Flag of Germany Germany 37.0 1.28
7 Flag of Russia Russia 34.7[1] 3.54
8 Flag of Italy Italy 33.9 1.61
9 Flag of Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia 29.0[2] 8.32
10 Flag of India India 24.2 2
11 Flag of South Korea South Korea 21.9 2.47
12 Flag of Canada Canada 14.6 1.10
13 Flag of Australia Australia 13.8 1.83
14 Flag of Brazil Brazil 13.4 1.26
15 Flag of Spain Spain 12.3 1.00
 
Source wiki
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot       5/4/2009 11:12:45 AM
 
link
 
link

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You are ill informed and not objective.   5/6/2009 1:23:33 PM

Seriously Herald, I know you like British, but I'm not misinformed or biased.

 Yes you are. If it isn't French, then its no good. Its that simple. The fact that someone may have something factually negative to say about THALES, the Rafale, the MICA, ASTER, rather well;l known French procurement disasters,  the general inferiority of French avionics, and the demonstrated fan boy virulence as I analyze it of  "defenders of French honor" in the face of technical fact drives you nuts.
 
UK has no fully independent strategic forces or strategic planning capabilities, or any capability to project a minimum of air power without agreement of a local partner against a country with a reasonable number of air superiority fighters, and this until 2017 (time needed for 2 carriers with a minimum number of F35).

When a nation can launch on command, it is independent. You argue that since Britain uses D-5 missiles that it is hamstrung by us? That is as stupid as saying that the British are hamstrung by France because they use ASTER as their Type 45 primary air defense missile.  The F-35 is a bomb truck with a very formidable A2A capability. The VTOL version is very British driven, so who is handcuffed to whom? Maybe the USMC to the RN?  As you can see, even by Cartesian logic you fail.  

UK has chosen a deep partnership with USA since Suez Crisis in 1956.

It can make sense, UK has given proofs like in 2003 to be a US reliable partner, but it not a fully independant capability.
 
Falklands. That is called negation

If USA says no to Brtish, you don't go or we stop our relationship and BTW we stop to maintain your deterrent (i.e the Trident 2), there is a huge problem for UK.
 
Britain buys or builds a different solution. AUSTRALIA, for example, is doing some interesting things with scramdarts.

UK stil retains some means to be able break relationship with USA (see the F35 drama) but it would be painfully.

Why does Britain (BAE buying up everything defense not nailed down) want to do that again?

See what top British officers  (no less than the former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall, backed by two senior generals) says:

link
"We don't own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without having the clearance of the United States," he said.
 
The letter stated: "This force cannot be seen as independent of the United States in any meaningful sense. It relies on the United States for the provision and regular servicing of the D5 missiles.
 
"While this country has, in theory, freedom of action over giving the order to fire, it is unthinkable that, because of the catastrophic consequences for guilty and innocent alike, these weapons would ever be launched, or seriously threatened, without the backing and support of the United States."
That is a political decision. You could be very well ignorant of with how much a jaundiced eye ANYONE SANE in the French government regards a WMD missile launch under the same exact POLITICAL terms. Like that British ARMY general, you confuse political with technical means. The Pakistanis for example have Americans running around inside their country trying to make sure that WE sit on their nuclear weapons, but as you can read in La Monde or AFP, there is no TECHNICAL way  even with us pointing a gun at Gillani's head like we did at Musharif  that we can guarantee no use as conditions actually exist inside Pakistan.    

The problem that those officers which are focused on conventional capabilities don"t see, is that a country without the backing of its national deterrent can be blackmailed like in 1956 by a nuclear power who would not appreciate military intervention of UK.
 
Once again its not like we have a physical means to stop use of a UK deployed weapon.  That lies with the UK user owner. Its why the British built their own bombs.

UK has chosen after 1956 a limited deterrent capability based on US help, but since depends of US support.
 
We supply the rockets. If not us, somebody else would supply the rockets. The M-51 is not a D-5, but it will work extremely well. The British could build their own. Ever hear of SKYLARK?   Discontinued but that knowledge base remains.
 
If they remove this US support , British are naked in front of independant nuclear powers and now there is several more nuclear power including non declared nuclear powers.
CREF above your ignorance.  The British still have own present options.
If they expect a nuclear protection in case of blackmail, they come back at the same point.
Is that so? Why is the US building that ABM site in Poland again?
France has choosen to stay able to act independantly and we are very proud of it.
France no longer has the independent political option with regard to the US and Europe. Your own President said this. Put aside your Gaulist illusions and smell the EU reality.
 
 
That is Germany by the way.
 
You are misinformed Herald.
 
I'm very well informed. in fact, as you most aqssuredly6 are not. I am also OBJECTIVE. That is the reason I can be critical of my own nation when it does something incredibly stupid, like lose the Afghanistan War in Pakistan,  and ignore very sound political advice from Britain, India, and yes for once, even from FRANCE. 

Herald
 

 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy