2011 World Military Strength Ranking released

[SO143]

^ Nowadays, Germany has no military power since Hitler butt got raped by allies in WW2.

[RobitTV]

Originally Posted by madjackmcmad

Britain was of course the biggest naval power on the planet for a century along with being the wealthiest nation. We have always been a maritime power.

Not that this precludes Britain from being a world power back then. Since there were only 2 types of warfare - army & navy, whoever controlled the seas controlled trade and made the rules. And that was Britain.

Mr Bricks is of course right, the British army has never been that powerful. I think the suggestion that army = military strength is of course a nonsense. Why anybody keeps replying to RobiTV is a mystery - he thinks military power is like a game of top trumps!

Infact this whole thread is a nonsense because different countries have different needs. Britain being an island can afford a small army with limited tank numbers but its military still packs a punch way beyond most other countries ( and especially will in 2020)

Its RobitTV to you thank you, not RobiTV

I may not be an expert on defence but i do not think it's a game of bloody top trump's, I try and join in on the conversation's best i can, and i never take the piss out of anyone or put people on the spot for silly mistake's (im not saying you did that acourse)

I am simply intrested in defence matter's is their problem with that?

[madjackmcmad]

Well Robit, you seem to have a coronary everytime another country has more soldiers than the UK as though Britain is somehow doomed because Argentina has 5 times the number of soldiers...

[RobitTV]

Originally Posted by madjackmcmad

Well Robit, you seem to have a coronary everytime another country has more soldiers than the UK as though Britain is somehow doomed because Argentina has 5 times the number of soldiers...

I know our priorities Navy and the RAF but the cut's in troop numbers is to much over 19,000, Britain is still a great power and we shouldn't be cutting troops at that level that wont allow us to deploy a significant force, Maybe a cut of around 7,000 troops to 10,000 but a cut of over 19,000 is just way to much.

But i do understand why, If this gives us the chance to Develop area's of the RAF And royal navy then so be it, But the million dollar question is: Will it give us the chance to develop other area's of our military?

And argentina does not have 5 times number of soldiers as us even when we make this cut.

[timo]

robot tv: do you have a background in military? or is it just something you are interested in?

[LondonFox]

Originally Posted by brightside.

How is Pakistan rated at #15? Are they taking the piss? Iran rated higher than us? There is no competition between Iran and us. We've got the sixth largest military in the world, combined with a decent air force. We're #4 on the nukes list. I think this is how it should be:

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. UK
6. France
7. India
8. Turkey
9. Pakistan
10. South Korea

This is based on my perception of military strength (who I think would win a one-one conventional, limited or proxy war, without nukes)

Germany should be below the UK and France.

[SO143]

Originally Posted by brightside.

How is Pakistan rated at #15? Are they taking the piss? Iran rated higher than us? There is no competition between Iran and us. We've got the sixth largest military in the world, combined with a decent air force. We're #4 on the nukes list. I think this is how it should be:

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. UK
6. France
7. India
8. Turkey
9. Pakistan
10. South Korea

This is based on my perception of military strength (who I think would win a one-one conventional, limited or proxy war, without nukes)

[Chuffy Chuffnell]

Originally Posted by brightside.

How is Pakistan rated at #15? Are they taking the piss? Iran rated higher than us? There is no competition between Iran and us. We've got the sixth largest military in the world, combined with a decent air force. We're #4 on the nukes list. I think this is how it should be:

1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. UK
6. France
7. India
8. Turkey
9. Pakistan
10. South Korea

This is based on my perception of military strength (who I think would win a one-one conventional, limited or proxy war, without nukes)

Firstly, how on earth did you figure Germany's place in your rankings.

Secondly, if you have such a fucking great army & air force why can't you control even your own territory?

Anyway your one-one war determination isn't a very good way of judging strength. So, could Pakistan attack the UK? No. Um. Could the UK attack Pakistan? Yes, but not occupy. So how would it work in working out rankings?

So many fall into the trap of "we've got 1,000,000 soldiers, whilst X has only 100,000, so we're stronger" - well, if you have no way of using those troops far from your own country then you've got a very limited military. Further, many of the world's largest armies are made up of poorly equipped, poorly trained conscripts. Whilst the British Army for instance, whilst quite small, is 100% volunteer professionals. With a lot of money spent on them!

[RobitTV]

Originally Posted by timo

robot tv: do you have a background in military? or is it just something you are interested in?

Im in just interested in it, Its intresting to know our defence and our capabilities to project power.

[LondonFox]

I agree with that Bricks chap..

The British Empire was a trading empire. We had the most powerful navy in the world and for a very long time, but our army was by no means the same as say... the Romans, who's idea of an Empire was through military conquest.

The British Empire was probably much smarter in that sense, instead of using our own forces to do the fighting, we employed the people who's lands we were in to fight for our cause.. such as India during the British Raj, the Canadians, the Aussies the Nepalis etc, promise them a cut of the wealth and protection and you will find out you have more friends than you thought.

For the most part, the British did not interfere with the locals that much or their way of life, we simply worked around them and got many of them to help with the work we were conducting in their lands. But, there were other cases of the British actively changing whole communities in order to make them more beneficial to the cause so to speak.. sometimes, undeveloped natives were unfortunately deemed non profitable and so were systematically removed and replaced, killed.. or simply adjusted to the British way of conducting business... but in the grand scheme of things, there were far far worse empires in history.

We also had huge companies that had their own armies and navies, such as the British East India Company.. which had its own very powerful army, however a lot of the time its actions that were not always deemed acceptable by the state it served, such as its actions in India which led to its demise at the hands of the British Regular army and Indian allies.

At the end of the day, the key to the British Empire was money and trade... forget armies, boats, guns, spears, shields and wars... if you controlled the money flow of the world and how it received it goods, then you controlled everything, friend and foe alike.

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by RobitTV

LOL seriosuly, i never said finland controlled a empire!!!! **** sake

Originally Posted by RobitTV

Could finland control an empire the size of the british empire?

Originally Posted by RobitTV

Look just go away already or shut it, you dont know anything about british history, so you do not come on here and bullshit and tell ME What i should do and when i should efin do it

You still haven´t told me exactly what it is you cinsider to be bullshit? Point it out please. I know far more than you about British history and I tell you now you had better pick up a history book. Fast.

Originally Posted by RobitTV

Im not going to get angry over this irrelevant argument that you started, And you will continue this argument just to prove your right!

So im going to end this now because im just sick of this argument, Can we please Just forgive eachother for the sake of not having another annoying argument.

I will beg you, friends? lets just forget this argument ever happened and move on, otherwise we will spend day's fighting over this.

First you provoke me and then decide that this is the end of the argument? Clever. I am right and you know it.

[RobitTV]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

You still haven´t told me exactly what it is you cinsider to be bullshit? Point it out please. I know far more than you about British history and I tell you now you had better pick up a history book. Fast.



First you provoke me and then decide that this is the end of the argument? Clever. I am right and you know it.

Well that's your decision if you think your right or wrong, i dont care really to be honest.

And please stop saying you know more, and you make out your the best "oh i know more then you" those comment's are childish comment's.

Now can we please just Focus on what this discussion is about "2011 World Military Strength Ranking" Im not gonna waste my time arguing over this its just getting to the point where silly and stupid comment's are being made.

If you want to continue this argument make a new thread, but you wont see me there.

I am trying to be calm here and trying not to make this argument worse for the sake of the people on this forum.

All i am asking is we stop arguing and move on, do we really need to keep making a big deal out of this and keep arguing??

[timo]

this is highly amusing reading

bricks wins this one (as usual) by a country mile, good work that man

ribbetTV, i advise you to pipe down and stop embarrassing your fellow brits. a couple of your lines about asking finland to 'look at themselves before they criticise us' is beyond ridiculous

[timo]

Originally Posted by RobitTV

Well that's your decision if you think your right or wrong, i dont care really to be honest.

And please stop saying you know more, and you make out your the best "oh i know more then you" those comment's are childish comment's.

Now can we please just Focus on what this discussion is about "2011 World Military Strength Ranking" Im not gonna waste my time arguing over this its just getting to the point where silly and stupid comment's are being made.

If you want to continue this argument make a new thread, but you wont see me there.

I am trying to be calm here and trying not to make this argument worse for the sake of the people on this forum.

All i am asking is we stop arguing and move on, do we really need to keep making a big deal out of this and keep arguing??

robitWARS - just admit he has had your pants right down, then move on

[RobitTV]

Originally Posted by timo

this is highly amusing reading

bricks wins this one (as usual) by a country mile, good work that man

ribbetTV, i advise you to pipe down and stop embarrassing your fellow brits. a couple of your lines about asking finland to 'look at themselves before they criticise us' is beyond ridiculous

Oh not you aswell, give me strength....

Are you trying to start a big argument or something?

This is not your problem or argument so go away.

[RobitTV]

I want to move on from this silly argument, but its just not happening.

so im not replying anymore until someone agree's that we can move on, or we get back on the actual point of this thread, to discuss military world ranking's.

But you timo, you seem to be making the situation worse. very helpful you are indeed.....

[caserass]

Originally Posted by SO143

This chart is wrong. France spends 44 billions € and not $ 44 billions. And again this amount doesn't represent all the expenditures made by the French army (gendarmerie, military operations unexpected...).

According to this chart the CIA WFB would have said France spend 44 B $. Here is the truth !, the CIA WFB says France spent in 2005 2.6 % of its GDP in military expenditures in other words the GDP of France in 2005 being of 2.1 trillions $ it means the military expenditures are 54,6 billions $. All the figures (or almost ) in this chart are wrong, unfortunately it seems these figures are used as a basis to make the ranking of the military strength.

Stockholm international research peace institute - budget per country

USA 2010 : 687.105 B $
China 2010 :114.300 B $
France 2010 : 61.285 B $
UK 2010 : 57.424 B $
Russia 2010 : 52.826 B $
Japan 2010 : 51.420 B $
Germany 2010 : 46.848 B $
Italy 2010 : 38.198 B $
India 2010 : 34.816 B $
South Korea 2010 : 24.270 B $

[Matthieu]

They just did the € to $ conversation with adapting the exchange rate :P

What a mistake.

[LondonFox]

Ah, now it makes more sense! France has to be above the UK otherwise it is nonsense.. of course.

[BodgeJob1]

Originally Posted by LondonFox

Ah, now it makes more sense! France has to be above the UK otherwise it is nonsense.. of course.

..yes, it's called 'The Brisavoine Syndrome'.....