New major military powers

[mexsoldier]

of course, economy is everything

what country in the world has a high tech military, highly specialized technicians that develop the best weapons and has highly trained soldiers, but with 1200 dollar per capita income? and as a plus all of the people is alphabetized and people there eat three times a day?

 

[mexsoldier]

just another comment...

if a country want to become a major world military power, first of all has to improve their economical, political and social status, as history teach us, only one country in the last century reached successfully the goal of become a major military power, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and not only that but in a historycally speaking in the shortest time ever, just 80 years, in that time, the united states become the world's biggest economy, one of the most socially and politically stable countries and of course the world's biggest military potence in the planet, i think if a country want to be a major miloitary power , that country should invest in their own technologies, this because surprise is one of the best weapons, when you have a weapon never ever seen, you can actually destroy an entire army (that's the case of japan, with the atomic bomb or the luftwaffe with the radar), countries like iran, for example maybe won't reach the goal of be a mmp(major military power) because as history tell us, sometimes a country invest more in buying a riffle than buying 500 pounds of wheat, if the people is hungry, the people will be unable to fight, if there is nobody who can fight, there is no reason to buy a riffle because there is nobody who want to use it,(the example of this is the soviet union, who invested more in heavy industries rather than the ones that move a economy, alimentary and basic needs)so what is the reason of a large quantityu of weapons if your people is starving?, countries like australia, mexico, brazil or argentina have future in this racing, but i actually think that others like pakistan, iran or North Korea will fell by its own errors, happy people fights better!, when in a country are social struggle or political turmoil, is more probable that country won't be able to be a mmp, that's the case of countries in civil war, or under fundamentalist control, and finally as history tell us , every single country, republic, realm, empire or whatever will fell, first in millenia(the roman empire against the barbarian), after in centuries(the spanish empire and the "armada invencible" against england)after in decades (could be United states in a decadent position ?, maybe not at this time, but against who?it wasn't japan, it wasn't russia, so then who?)well, that's my commentary, i hope you like it.

 

[riksavage]

Countries such as Pakistan and Iran will not become major powers, they simply do not have the ability to project and sustain. They also suffer (particularly in the case of Pakistan) from internal problems which absorbs a substantial portion of the military. Firing the occasional short – medium range missiles across your borders or supporting the occasional raid does not automatically mean you are in the same league as more established military powers with a strong track record of power projection and established nuclear arsenals with global reach (US, UK, France, China, Russia).

Having a massive standing army is irrelevant unless you can move it and sustain it on extended operations, which as we all know requires a huge investment in infrastructure to enable the logistics tail to function effectively. Iran loves to sabre rattle, but its military is poorly equipped and would suffer very badly in a conventional war against a half-decent enemy. Where Iran can hurt an opponent is in an insurgency campaign similar in scope and scale to what we are witnessing in Iraq.

I think we need to look at set criteria, which a country has to meet before it can be considered a major military power, suggested examples as follows:

• Stable domestic situation (military able to focus on external rather than internal operations)
• Modern weapon systems
• Well trained, lead and motivated fighting force
• Integrated war-fighting ability between all arms (navy, air-force and army)
• Ability to project –strategic lift (land & sea) – Say at a brigade or divisional level
• Strategic strike – global reach with conventional and / or non conventional weapons
• Logistics tail capable of sustaining operations for extended periods

 

[mexsoldier]

yes i think same as you

yes i think they are the main criteria from any decent army could be supported, how many days could fight 3 millions of irani soldiers against 50,000 british soldiers?

 

[riksavage]

Iran on paper may have 3 million men capable of welding an AK47, realistically however I doubt they could muster a fully equipped and capable division on a par with western standards! A huge rabble waving AK47’s and chanting allegiance to the Ayatollahs is not going to bring alot of tactical advantages to the battlefield. Remember you have to mobilize, equip, support, feed and move those 3 million to the battlefront. A large proportion will end up as cannon fodder on day-one; a single MLRS salvo for example will wipe out one square kilometre of ground. They would be detected mobilising and moving to jump off points, I seriously doubt the coalition forces in Iraq (US and UK) will sit around and wait for them to get their act together. If Iran moved against Basra you would see a response from the allies, which would make the daily losses suffered by the Iranians in the Iraq / Iran war look trivial.

 

[mexsoldier]

i really don't like wars...

but i think Iran is waiting for something, any chance , anything, to attack and use their nuclear arsenal,(i really think they have some atomic bombs, old but atomic...) and i think it will be over Israel, i don't understand how people could hate somebody only because the god of the other has different name but still being the same god,(sorry for the religious commentary...)i hope iran don't act as a stupid.

 

[eckherl]

but i think Iran is waiting for something, any chance , anything, to attack and use their nuclear arsenal,(i really think they have some atomic bombs, old but atomic...) and i think it will be over Israel, i don't understand how people could hate somebody only because the god of the other has different name but still being the same god,(sorry for the religious commentary...)i hope iran don't act as a stupid.

Where would Iran get atomic bombs from, if they were that stupid to launch such attack against Israel they would be destroyed in a matter of days by Israel and the U.S. Everyone suspects Israel already has some nukes stashed away for that just in case scenario that a fanatical leader like the one who thinks he may be running Iran gets a little crazy.

 

[mexsoldier]

mmm, from corrupt russian officials?,or black market...

if iran only had one bomb i think that's enough to cause a big damage, destroy tel aviv and you have destroyed the 15% of israeli's economy, plus a great fear added to the people all over israel. not only the atomic fear is the unique, but chemical or biological could be destructive too, send antrax and the country will be in extreme panic, and contamine the main sources of water, and in a 85% desert country you will have people flying to europe and US.

 

[Snayke]

Attack Tel Aviv and you eliminate Israel's biggest vocal enemy as the US probably (can't say for sure) use their nuclear forces to strike at major points of Iran. Hell, they could just use their conventional weapons. I believe they have 3 Carrier Groups in the Gulf at the moment. That's more than enough to bomb military and/or strategic targets within Iran. There would be no point of Iran attacking Israel unless they wanted to suicide on them.

I highly doubt it would install fear into the Israeli people, infact I would much think they would be mourning yes, but angry. Anything but fearful. Infact, Iranian allies would distance themselves as they would be fearful of US/Israeli retaliation in response to such a poor attack (the attack doesn't even touch on military targets, just civilian).

eckherl - Isn't an Israeli in prison for whistle-blowing on the Israeli nuclear program? I think I saw something about it on the news a little while ago. Hehe. I think their tactic is officially deny it but unofficially let their enemies know they have it. Sneaky buggers.

 

[mexsoldier]

yes, iran will only commit suicide...

yes i think so, how iran will stop thousands and thousands of the better aircrafts constructed by the americans, and an sudden inavsion by the west(iraq), and by the east (afghanistan), iran has fear of an invasion like that, or maybe Iran is the next...





iraq has fell, afghanistan has fell, the following in the black gold list is....

 

[Snayke]

Well, it wouldn't be a sudden invasion. There would have to be a build up as I doubt allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be able to spare troops for another invasion.

 

[mexsoldier]

mmm, i think US could make a new selective service act...

remeber,the government can rewrite another selective service act, so you have 5 million new soldiers in 8 months, the invasion could be not sudden, but if you count the soldiers of united kingdom and US together you could send them in 3 weeks or less, and i think 150,000 soldiers, and a heavy bombardment over iran's main military, industrial, and communication centers, are enough to maintain a war in iran, oh and i forget , a political campaign inside iran to defeat the loyalty of the fundamentalist to the allatolah or whatever is the name of that guy.

 

[Snayke]

Do you think the US have enough facilities and manpower to train millions of people at the same time? I'm not so sure.

 

[f-22fan12]

China is rapidly advancing in technology. When China reaches convergence it will have 400% the spending power of America. They are already set to exceed US total GDP in 2-3 years. Whether they will increase their budget to equivalent levels of the US is unknown.

I seriously doubt Russia will become a major military power. They simply do not have the population or money to do so and they never will. One of the reasons the Soviet Union was powerful was their huge numbers.

Basically military power is whatever your country's economy is capable of holding. In which case it'd be

1. China
2. India
3. US
4. Russia

I completely agree with you. Economy IS important for military stregnth. China will overtake our GDP in 5-10 years MAX. And I also agree that Russia will NEVER rise to power again. They have a shrinking population and many internal problems. China will be able to outspend the U.S. in about 20 years.
Welcome to Defence Talk

By the Way China's GDP has just neared overtaking Germany's to become the third largest in the world.

 

[f-22fan12]

Economy is everything. No economy, no military.

Once again, I agree. You and I think alike.

Without money, how do you spend for R&D or buy weapons? You can't.

 

[swerve]

...Nominal GDP does not mean anything in the economic world. I'm not sure about this argument you state PPP vs nominal? I studied economics in University, and there was no such argument. PPP is always better than nominal. PPP vs Real could be an argument, although weak, but PPP vs nominal is not.
....

If you studied economics, you should know that whole-economy PPP is not the same as sectoral PPP. The fact that haircuts in Chengdu are cheaper than in Chicago does not make China better able to afford missiles. For military hardware, the PPP is likely to be much closer to the exchange rate than the whole-economy PPP, as military hardware is a tradable good (or produced by firms in the same market for materials & skilled labour as tradable civilian goods), & the exchange-rate deviation index is greatest for non-tradable goods.

There is also the subsistence problem, as mentioned by Grand Danois, & described in detail in the works of Mark Harrison, Stephen Broadberry & others on the economics of WW1 & WW2 (recommended reading, BTW), which leads to the counter-intuitive fact that it's easier for a country with a small agricultural workforce to mobilise its economy for war & feed itself than a country with a large peasant population, & as he said, means the taxable margin, & therefore military spending potential, is less, the lower the national income per head.

All these things make GDP (or GNP, or GNI) at PPP a poor predictor of ability to finance military spending. Nominal GDP has its own problems, e.g. distortions introduced by short-term exchange rate fluctations, & distortion of relative manpower costs, but a smoothed (average ER over a few years) nominal GDP measure is probably closer to a measure of military spending potential than GDP at PPP.

 

[Incognito129]

I don't think adjusting for inflation really touches substance. Particularly as you used a PPP dependant - 400% increase in spending power. As you assume convergence, it will equal real and nominal (same baseline year in the future).

Depending on what you wish to compare in those economies: Livings standards, PPP is good; RD&T, nominal (or real) is good. See the attachment I posted earlier.

Spending power... You assume that when convergence is reached China will have 400% the spending power of the US. I explained in my prev post why I think China will not exceed 150% of US GDP (nominal or real).

I emphasised why nominal (or real) is a better indicator of war potential, as you cannot tax a low GDP per capita as hard as a high - it is tied up in subsistence. High RER is only good if you wish to fight with obsolete kit and peasant armies, to be a bit extreme.

When China reaches convergence it will have 4 times the spending power. Solow model predicts this and it hasn't been disproven, although minor changes are introduced as time goes by basically convergence is population x avg per capita. Avg per capita depends largely on technology, although it will be different per country depending on savings rate and such.

PPP measures the amount of value floating around in the economy. Whether its some poor farmer buying food and nothing else or a billionaire buying whatever, if its counted by the government then its adding to the economy.

I really dont see an argument in this, its basic macroeconomics. PPP is by far superior and the best way of measuring an economy. Nominal isn't even a valid way of comparing countries since inflation and exchange rate isn't factored in.

@f-22fan12, China's GDP is 80% of the US total GDP(PPP). It bypassed Germany a few years ago.

One of the reasons for our skyrocketing gas prices in the insane amount of demand coming from China and India. When its all said and done China's will dwarf almost everything.

 

[Incognito129]

If you studied economics, you should know that whole-economy PPP is not the same as sectoral PPP. The fact that haircuts in Chengdu are cheaper than in Chicago does not make China better able to afford missiles. For military hardware, the PPP is likely to be much closer to the exchange rate than the whole-economy PPP, as military hardware is a tradable good (or produced by firms in the same market for materials & skilled labour as tradable civilian goods), & the exchange-rate deviation index is greatest for non-tradable goods.

There is also the subsistence problem, as mentioned by Grand Danois, & described in detail in the works of Mark Harrison, Stephen Broadberry & others on the economics of WW1 & WW2 (recommended reading, BTW), which leads to the counter-intuitive fact that it's easier for a country with a small agricultural workforce to mobilise its economy for war & feed itself than a country with a large peasant population, & as he said, means the taxable margin, & therefore military spending potential, is less, the lower the national income per head.

All these things make GDP (or GNP, or GNI) at PPP a poor predictor of ability to finance military spending. Nominal GDP has its own problems, e.g. distortions introduced by short-term exchange rate fluctations, & distortion of relative manpower costs, but a smoothed (average ER over a few years) nominal GDP measure is probably closer to a measure of military spending potential than GDP at PPP.

Whether its real or PPP China's per capita will be the same level as the US.

You dont have an argument here.

We're assuming China is a developed country with similar sectoral statistics. As China grows, its peasant and farmer population will dwindle. Most wealth is held by 10% of the population. Whether the Chinese government wants to and is aware of income originating from the poorest of the country is irrelevant. Taxation is not a strong point for or against military spending, as you can easily adjust it. With adjustments you are still taxing from a country's GDP.

The difference between nominal and real is inflation. If nominal is a good method then real is an even better method. I'm not saying either one is better than PPP but just stating the difference.

 

[f-22fan12]

When China reaches convergence it will have 4 times the spending power. Solow model predicts this and it hasn't been disproven, although minor changes are introduced as time goes by basically convergence is population x avg per capita. Avg per capita depends largely on technology, although it will be different per country depending on savings rate and such.

PPP measures the amount of value floating around in the economy. Whether its some poor farmer buying food and nothing else or a billionaire buying whatever, if its counted by the government then its adding to the economy.

I really dont see an argument in this, its basic macroeconomics. PPP is by far superior and the best way of measuring an economy. Nominal isn't even a valid way of comparing countries since inflation and exchange rate isn't factored in.

@f-22fan12, China's GDP is 80% of the US total GDP(PPP). It bypassed Germany a few years ago.
One of the reasons for our skyrocketing gas prices in the insane amount of demand coming from China and India. When its all said and done China's will dwarf almost everything.

I know, that is purchasing power parity. I was talking about official exchange rate. In PPP China is 10 trillion and the U.S. is 13 trillion. Japan is 4.3 trillion and India is 4.1 trillion.

 

[Grand Danois]

@Incognito129

War potential - not spending power...