Global firepower military ranking 2014

[Betonov]

We're on the list

Originally Posted by Betonov

We're on the list

We're not

[CCIP]

Very neat!

And as for Israel etc., I think it's only the obvious - it's not the firepower, it's how you use it (and against what). In Israel's case, you have to consider who they're fighting. Their traditional enemies all rank well below them, with the exception of Egypt - though many would argue that if Israel and Egypt were to have a full-blown war today, it might not end that well for the Israelis. Even Lebanon in 2006 proved more than they could effectively crack. Even then, of course, they've stood up to some pretty overwhelming odds, but try to picture Israel going up against one of the top powers in the list in an all-out prolonged war, and yeah... doesn't look so good, does it.

I think Turkey, Japan and South Korea are the most interesting three in the top 10. People often underestimate just how large and capable those countries' militaries are.

Another observation is about the role of military in the politics of Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan. Their political fortunes seem to come and go, but there's little wonder those three countries seem to flip-flop between military dictatorships and periods when they're pushed out of power but stay firmly in the background. Their military bureaucracies are really deeply ingrained, even despite the massive social instability.

Another observation is the chest-puffing of Iran and North Korea. Look where they are compared to the Ukraine, and look at how well Ukraine is able to deal with with even so much as a threat from a first-rate power, even where they are not isolated internationally. Ouch. Even without involvement of first-rate powers, it's interesting to see just how poorly those two "rogue states" fare against their regional opponents (Japan and South Korea in DPRK's case, Israel and Saudi Arabia and arguably Turkey in Iran's).

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

We're not

Buahahahahhahaahahahaha

Good for you I guess. Less means less maintenance, less money wasted.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Buahahahahhahaahahahaha

Good for you I guess. Less means less maintenance, less money wasted.

Just curious. Less "wasting" states not maintaining defences, are less capable in defending. In case they suddenly need defence because of a war - what do you suggest then? Others bailing them out?

[Jimbuna]

I've noticed nuclear capability is not taken into account but do wonder how much that relates to power projection.

[Skybird]

It prevents an enemy from projecting his power.

[Jimbuna]

So does it have an alternate bearing on the ranking position?

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Just curious. Less "wasting" states not maintaining defences, are less capable in defending. In case they suddenly need defence because of a war - what do you suggest then? Others bailing them out?

They have a brigade of highly skilled Celtic ninjas, that will assassinate any enemy leaders bringing a war to a sudden and bloodless halt.


Waste in the Slovene army. We are a country that's small, mountanes and more than half forested. And we are investing in open warfare NATO doctrine equipment like armored transporters and guns that are excellent in dry climates but will jam the first time a soldier crosses a creek.
If there's a war here the only doctrine with an army this small is let the country fall and head for the hills. And then slaughter them with guerilla tactics like partisans did in WWII. You blow up one railroad bridge and you cripple an entire corridor for days.

[Skybird]

Since when are there Celts in Slowenia...?

Militia or guerilla forces like in Switzerland still needs a certain amount of funding and preparation. Else the first guerilla counterattack will be that guerilla's last counterattack as well.

[Oberon]

I dunno, Yugoslavia has done pretty well with partisans in the past.

In regards to Celts, well...you'd be surprised:

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Since when are there Celts in Slowenia...?

Militia or guerilla forces like in Switzerland still needs a certain amount of funding and preparation. Else the first guerilla counterattack will be that guerilla's last counterattack as well.

There were before the Romans.
I thought you meant Ireland since I was talking to Tribesman (about Ireland)

Yeah, Yugoslavia was prepared for that. Even civilians had compulsory weapons and tactics training* and weapon caches hidden all around the lands.


* training? almost, limited training, some state funded camping trips and a quick briefing on gun handling. My mother knew how to use the AK-47 when she was in elemnatary school. Never fired one though.

Originally Posted by Betonov

Buahahahahhahaahahahaha

Good for you I guess. Less means less maintenance, less money wasted.

They can always find ways to waste money.

Just curious. Less "wasting" states not maintaining defences, are less capable in defending. In case they suddenly need defence because of a war - what do you suggest then? Others bailing them out?

Well Skybird there is this little theory I heard on this forum, what happens is you have this little isolated community which lives in happy clappy blissland without a central government and without nasty horrors such as taxes to waste on things like armies.
When things go pear shaped they hire in some mercenaries from a less happy clappy blissland and hope that when the pear shaped situation is resolved the mercenaries all bugger off home
Now history would suggest that the "ideal" Italian city states proved this little theory to be complete bollox, but strangely some people still hold to it and praise it as a solution.