I would say 30 milllions.

But it depends of its natural ressources, political systems, industry, culture, "nationalism" since a small country compared to the biggest power has to be more commited for a global policy and associated cost.

The most difficult is to get sufficient manpower to have good and diversified industry and technological base, and still allocate 50 billon $ minimum to defense (with draft as it is mandatory for a such country unless it is a maritime power).

It is impossible to have a full indigenous defense industry sustainable for long term under such a population.

Indeed you need a certain amount of engineer and I supposed this country is almost the best educated to get sufficient level of brillant engineers (and officers) without too sacrifying rest.

A country of 30 milllions people ( 900 B? with 30 000 ? per capita GDP) could allocate up to 10% to its defense including 1% in military R&D.

Indeed minimum military R&D level is about 4 Billion ? (and likely 5/6).

In history smaller countries sometime outperformed greater power in size: Sparta, UK (vs China) , Prussia...

A great power define relatively to the greatest .Such country would have 10% of US population but invest more in defense proportionally and more dedicated without sacrifying investment.It could have an army+navy of size of France and UK combined with still a correct purchasing power.

 

 

 

 

When I say population, I do mean total population. It is generally measured by a census every decade or so.

 

It is obvious that some countries may have large populations yet not be great powers due to a subsistence-level economy. Others may have sufficient populations and well-established economies, yet forego great power status willingly by not spending on military capabilities, perhaps due to feeling secure enough in their region and not desiring further influence. What I am asking for is the minimum population required to achieve and sustain a great power status, hence there is an implicit assumption that the state in question would have to want to be a great power with a global reach and have the capabilities to achieve this goal.

"I would say 30 milllions."

 

Interesting

 

"But it depends of its natural ressources, political systems, industry, culture, "nationalism" since a small country compared to the biggest power has to be more commited for a global policy and associated cost."

 

Definitely - I certainly agree completely that it takes much more dedication from a small country.

 

Indeed you need a certain amount of engineer and I supposed this country is almost the best educated to get sufficient level of brillant engineers (and officers) without too sacrifying rest.

A country of 30 milllions people ( 900 B? with 30 000 ? per capita GDP) could allocate up to 10% to its defense including 1% in military R&D.

 

 

"Indeed minimum military R&D level is about 4 Billion ? (and likely 5/6)."

 

Very interesting - why 4  billion euro (or 5/6)?

 

"A great power define relatively to the greatest. Such country would have 10% of US population but invest more in defense proportionally and more dedicated without sacrifying investment.It could have an army+navy of size of France and UK combined with still a correct purchasing power."

 

Hmm, you think it would take the combined size of French and UK's forces to make a great power? I would have thought a smaller force would suffice even for a global great power, no?  

In European price (GDP/capita =30 000 ?)

It is the minimum level to have all weapons kinds and a decent military R&D (BTW it is level of France or UK spending).

R&D= R&T+development

A fighter need to be developped each 20 years as a tank or a SSN.Above you lost competencies.(an engineer generation)

If you dont invest enough in R&T you are too far way from US or too dependant in components.

Investement in R&T is 1,3/1,4 B? a year to saty close to US.

5/6 is more likely if you invest a lot  in nules and SSBN and space

France managed to reduce to 4 only because we have developped a new SSBN which will last to 2040 and a new SLBM and we share with other EU countries.Moreover we have reduced by far our nuke development program relying on simulation to garantee only reliability and not better performance which are good enough.

Before we used to spend 5/6.

Some price:

fighter development= 12 B? +3 B? midlife udpdate

SSN 3 B?

Tank or frigate 1 B?:

An SLBM 8 B?

Add all of them and yo have already 1,35 B? to spend annually on 4.

 

France and UK are the smallest populated country which have kept attributes of a (potential) great power

 

I know that you consider indigenous military industry crucial to freedom of action and you pretty much convinced me (in other threads) that the ability to design and produce indigenous military equipment in all fields is indeed fundamental to a country with global great power ambitions unless it wants to suffer from a possible veto on its actions from its suppliers.

And moreover you would never have best technology or ability to field surprise if you import.You would have trojan horse in your equipement and other would know quite well your systems (to jam them or implement right tactics for example).

Also as important, you can not spend much if you have to import at full price and can not scale up.

Indeed your trade balance have to be in equilibrium.Never forget the import of raw materials is only 10 to 20% of final price!

 

The question is misleading... b/c power and prestige do not always corroborate with numbers and ratio's. Power is related to qualities such as ingenuity,innovation, character, cunning, flexibility, and strategic and tactical dominance (which can be gained with lack of numbers as history shows time and again). More clearly, this thread reminds me of the old addage..."give me men of valor over men of number."

 

Sometimes one's big size becomes their weakness (Asimov' foundation series deals with this concept), but it surely doesn't hurt to be in double digits of millions when it comes to your populations.

 

 

The amount of capital required too is the subject of much debate. I have in mind the SU which, according to economists, went through the cold war with a GDP equivalent to that of Denmark (!) (i.e. under a trillion dollars).

 

The question in my mind which has never been adequately answered, is how a nation with a GDP the size of Denmark's GDP could become a superpower?!?!

and a very convincing one!

 

how does a nation with the economic means of Denmark fool the world for decades and decades? there may be a minimum population level to be declared a great power, but ingenuity can make up for a lack of purchasing power it seems...

 

 

The USSR did not have a GDP equivalent to that of Denmark. It had approximately the same GDP as Japan, but of course spread over a much larger population, so per capita GDP was significantly lower.

Had human factors.

1. Highly educated population.

2. Decent technology base.

3. Highly original and innovative inventors.

4. Regimented motivation.

5. Fear.

 

With that driving them they were able to compete successfully for fifty years. It wasn't all Potemkim. They are the only other nation besides the US with a persistent MANNED presence in space and a ROBUST space program. That counts as a TRUE measure of their capability. 

 

Part of being a great power is WILL translated into EFFECT. Israel is the other primary example. A nation on paper weaker than New Jersey is the current Sparta of this Earth. Funny that. Sparta versus the Persians again.......I suppose that nitwit, Ahmadinejab, if he is a historian as he claims, remembers whatn happened to Xerxes 1?

 

Herald

"In European price (GDP/capita =30 000 ?)

 

To be a "great" Power you need:

 

- at least 10.000.000 Men fit for Military service, to be able to fight a "real" World War.

- 500.000 active Soldiers + reserves

- a Top 10 world economy 

- Nuclear Weapons, SSNs, Sattelites, ICBMs, Aircraft Carriers 

- UN Veto Power, or access and good relations to a Veto Power

- Population 50 Million at least.

 

 

 

FEAR and also control of the media. It's really strange how important that is. One of the major reasons for the fall of the SU was the unleashing of the media by Gorbachev. Once TV shows began to expose ineffeciencies in the system, drug use, prostitution, the moral base of the country seemed to erode and the WILL that you mention disappeared.

 

Another funny thing is the scorn heaped upon the (few) thinkers who predicted the fall of the SU. I'll try and find a link to this. It's a good read.