New major military powers

[kato]

I'm not sure how the three non-EU associate members relate to the ESDP.

The WEU Assembly has issued a recommendation and memorandum for that issue in 2000, since the ESDP Treaties didn't clear it up.

As per the Council Treaties (for ESDP), the Associate Members do only have consultation rights within ESDP if NATO assets are used. The European Council also did technically not absorb the WEU in its entirety into the EU, in particular not the cooperation with the Associate Members. The EU Council only absorbed WEU operational aspects.
The WEU Assembly's recommendation is that pretty much ESDP should be modified to accomodate WEU Associate Members.

Afaik, the EU has not acted on this since then really. The WEU has however to my knowledge set up workgroups that "interface" WEU Associate Members with EU/ESDP. There are some restrictions iirc compared to "full members", like no/limited access to EU satellite resources. As of January 2007, the Associate Members still "interfaced" with ESDP like that.

 

[XaNDeR]

Why do I have a dejavú about the famous my **** is bigger than yours...uh I mean...who has the most powerfull armed forces threads of the past?

I agree its stupid , but if someone says such a nonsense that is not true isn't it fair too correct him

 

[Waylander]

It doesn't help the discussion either when your response consists of not much more than one or two lines...

 

[John J]

after the 90's the united states got alone as the major military powers, but since the begining of this decade, new powers had rise like china and india, and others had been decreasing in their forces, like iraq, or russia (decreasing because russia doesnt have the power that had in the 80's), so, is in the world a new pole of power?, could asia became the next center of military development and power?, will china become an important competence to the US?

I believe that the United States is falling behind with its military technology. However, I do not believe that China will be the "top power". They do produce around 85% of all American products, but you need to remember that China is not the only nation that knows how to process food and make clothing.

Who knows... within the next 10 years, the United States could be competing in another weapons race.

 

[eckherl]

I believe that the United States is falling behind with its military technology. However, I do not believe that China will be the "top power". They do produce around 85% of all American products, but you need to remember that China is not the only nation that knows how to process food and make clothing.

Who knows... within the next 10 years, the United States could be competing in another weapons race.

The U.S is falling behind in it`s military technology, then who is catching up and in what areas. I do not see this happening any time soon.

 

[XaNDeR]

I somewhat agree with eckherl that USA is still tehnologicaly on the top in some areas , but in some areas Russia is better , germans also have some better tank tehnology's , remember that it is a german gun on the abrams..

 

[Grand Danois]

Here is something for you to ponder.

http://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/public/docs/2006/march/UK defence industrial strategy - dec 05.pdf

 

[f-22fan12]

China is militarily stronger than Russia? please .. thats the most stupid thing I heard in a while

edit. Il put India ahead of China too

USA
Russia
India
UK
China

Okay, I'll put Russia ahead of China altough they have a smaller defence budget and fewer soldiers and in some areas better tech. But India ahead of China??? You're joking, right?

You're telling me a country without an ICBM, its own nuclear powered submarine, and its own hi-tech fighter jet, is more powerful than a country that does have all these things? Plus, look at their defense budgets. India's is below 15 billion while china's "official" is over 40 billion.

 

[f-22fan12]

I somewhat agree with eckherl that USA is still tehnologicaly on the top in some areas , but in some areas Russia is better , germans also have some better tank tehnology's , remember that it is a german gun on the abrams..

I totoally agree about the German's being better. (type 212 AIP sub, Leopard 2 A6, RAM missile system)

Where is Russia better???

 

[riksavage]

The Economist June 30th addition takes a critical look at America and future rising superpowers. America remains the number one spender on military hardware, particularly R&D. It spends more on defence in real terms than at any time since WWII. According to the Economist world defence spending as a % total in 2006 was as follows:

US45.7%
UK5.1%
France4.6%
China4.3%
Japan3.8%
Germany3.2%
Russia3.0%
India2.1%

Russia, China and India combined don't equal that of the US!

Out of these nations very few can project and sustain their forces in expeditionary warfare. Only the US, UK and France have the ability to do so. India and China may be rising, but they have a hell of a long way to go before they can project and sustain themselves on protracted military operations other than against potential foes on their immediate borders.

What is interesting though is by 2050 China’s GDP forecast $trn will be 80 against the US’s predicted 40. China will therefore have the spending power to try and equal that of America, however they still have decades of catching up to do in regard to technology and doctrine. And remember whilst countries such as India and China are playing catch-up the rest aren’t going to be sitting still!

 

[Waylander]

And one should not forget that countries like Germany and Japan onl spend 1,3% and 1% of their GDP for defence.

It may be unlikely but nobody can look that far into the future and it may be possible that they (and other G8 nations) spend more.

Both countries would be immediately on place number two if they would spend the same percentage of GDP like France or the UK.

The same for other G8 nations (Canada, Italy) which have the economical and technological base but decided not to spend that much on their armed forces.

 

[T-95]

I totoally agree about the German's being better. (type 212 AIP sub, Leopard 2 A6, RAM missile system)

Where is Russia better???

Ballistics missile technology, BVR missile technology, some aircraft technology (TVC nozzles on planes is a Russian concept), ATGM technology, tank defense technology, air defense technology, anti-stealth technology, ECCM technology (just look at the ECCM in their SAM's). They're better in a lot of things and there's no denying it. The Americans bought an S-300 to make the PAC-3.

 

[Snayke]

I think that we should count all the countries of the EU as one as they have a common defense agreement and will not have a war amongst each other. By counting them as one, I believe the order is:
1. U.S.A.
2. E.U.
3. China
4. Russia
5. India

Question about the EU. Is this just mutual defence pacts are have the European Union have an actual combined chain of command? That's when I'll count the EU as one military force, when they actually are. I don't believe separate allied militaries make one military. That's just political support for each other.

But I have no doubt that in the future where the EU is more integrated, that there would be an actual unified European Union military force which would be quite a force.

 

[Waylander]

BTW, RAM is a joint US-German system.

 

[XaNDeR]

Ballistics missile technology, BVR missile technology, some aircraft technology (TVC nozzles on planes is a Russian concept), ATGM technology, tank defense technology, air defense technology, anti-stealth technology, ECCM technology (just look at the ECCM in their SAM's). They're better in a lot of things and there's no denying it. The Americans bought an S-300 to make the PAC-3.

Agreed

Okay, I'll put Russia ahead of China altough they have a smaller defence budget and fewer soldiers and in some areas better tech.

Ok , but soldiers is the least of your concern when your dealing with a far better navy and airforce as your own , there is no chance of China coming close of having any chance against Russian navy or airforce.

But India ahead of China??? You're joking, right?

You're telling me a country without an ICBM, its own nuclear powered submarine, and its own hi-tech fighter jet, is more powerful than a country that does have all these things? Plus, look at their defense budgets. India's is below 15 billion while china's "official" is over 40 billion.

Yes true , I might have made a wrong conclusion here , apologies on that behalf , but I was not counting nuclear weapons , and I was concentrating more on the fact that India has great training of soldiers and pilots , while China has numbers but their training still lacks alot..
Btw don't even mention China's submarine fleet , its nothing special , they have 1 of those new ships from my sources , rest ( except a few Kilo submarines ) are seriusly outdated old submarines , not counting the Jin class SSBN's

 

[swerve]

Question about the EU. Is this just mutual defence pacts are have the European Union have an actual combined chain of command? That's when I'll count the EU as one military force, when they actually are. I don't believe separate allied militaries make one military. That's just political support for each other.

But I have no doubt that in the future where the EU is more integrated, that there would be an actual unified European Union military force which would be quite a force.

You're asking either/or questions when it's far too complicated to answer like that. This isn't the place to give a full description of W. European military integration. Suffice it to say that it is both closer (in parts) & looser than a combined chain of command. Once could, perhaps, say there is a unified EU military force, but it is made up of units attached from national forces including some from a non-EU European country (yes, really!), & consists of only a small part of those national forces.

I think you need to do some research of your own. For a start, look up the WEU, the EU security policy I mentioned, the Eurocorps, the European Union Rapid Reaction Force, EU battlegroups (e.g. the Nordic battlegroup), & the European Defence Agency.

 

[Snayke]

You're asking either/or questions when it's far too complicated to answer like that. This isn't the place to give a full description of W. European military integration. Suffice it to say that it is both closer (in parts) & looser than a combined chain of command. Once could, perhaps, say there is a unified EU military force, but it is made up of units attached from national forces including some from a non-EU European country (yes, really!), & consists of only a small part of those national forces.

I think you need to do some research of your own. For a start, look up the WEU, the EU security policy I mentioned, the Eurocorps, the European Union Rapid Reaction Force, EU battlegroups (e.g. the Nordic battlegroup), & the European Defence Agency.

Well I knew there were some actual EU units, I just didn't know if they had progressed at integrating them.

(Also, EU units from non EU nations?! :O))

 

[swerve]

Well I knew there were some actual EU units, I just didn't know if they had progressed at integrating them.

(Also, EU units from non EU nations?! :O))

Told you it's complicated.

 

[Snayke]

I thought it was an EU military! Haha. But yes, if the EU do fully integrate their forces, that would probably be a the top military powers due to its current quality in manpower and military technology. I remember someone saying that all the EU forces put together would number at around 2.5 million? That's quite a lot of quality! Imagine its inventory!

 

[XaNDeR]

Yes EU is certainly very strong , but its still not 1 nation , I rather compare 1 nation to another as 1 group but comparing EU , they are probably the best quality army in the world