New major military powers

Status
Not open for further replies.

swerve

Super Moderator
...
@f-22fan12, China's GDP is 80% of the US total GDP(PPP). It bypassed Germany a few years ago.....
According to projections forward (using official, i.e. disputed, GDP growth rates) from a private (though with official co-operation) study done in 1987, estimating the PPP of 1986 GDP. The World Bank, & other reputable institutions, always attach a caveat to the figure when they quote it. Even if the official growth figures are accurate, the structure of the economy has changed so much that constant-price PPPs from 1986 are unlikely to produce the same result as a current-price PPP estimate. Go on, use that education! You should know all that.

My personal guess would be that you have to knock that figure down a bit, & that the forthcoming official (in co-operation with the World Bank) estimate will be maybe 20% lower.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
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. ....

But is that likely to occur? Is China really going to catch up with the USA in per capita GDP? It'll have to find a new growth mechanism to do that. And that growth mechanism is virtually certain to produce much slower growth. Look at the income levels that other countries have sustained Chinese growth rates to. Japan petered out at 60% of the then US level, or about 35% of the current US level, dropping down quite suddenly to growth rates only a little above those of W. Europe & the USA at the time. South Korea slowed down more gradually, but at about the level (absolute, not relative) at which Japan stopped growing spectacularly, its growth was down to moderate rates. Taiwan - same-same.

It's a bit like Zenos frog. Y'know, the one in the well. Chinese growth will slow, & by a great deal, long before it reaches US levels.
 

f-22fan12

New Member
But is that likely to occur? Is China really going to catch up with the USA in per capita GDP? It'll have to find a new growth mechanism to do that. And that growth mechanism is virtually certain to produce much slower growth. Look at the income levels that other countries have sustained Chinese growth rates to. Japan petered out at 60% of the then US level, or about 35% of the current US level, dropping down quite suddenly to growth rates only a little above those of W. Europe & the USA at the time. South Korea slowed down more gradually, but at about the level (absolute, not relative) at which Japan stopped growing spectacularly, its growth was down to moderate rates. Taiwan - same-same.

It's a bit like Zenos frog. Y'know, the one in the well. Chinese growth will slow, & by a great deal, long before it reaches US levels.
No, China will NEVER CATCH UP WITH THE U.S. IN PER CAPITA GDP. But for anyone with any sense, they know China doesn't have to. China has a pop. of 1.3 BILLION people. The U.S. pop. is only 300 million. ALOT smaller. Even if the average Chinese made only 1/3 of the U.S., they would still be Richer.
 

XaNDeR

New Member
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).
-I agree , Pakistan and Iran won't become major military powers..
-But for the power projection , France and China are not in the same league as USA , UK and Russia , and USA is in a higher league even.



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.
Sorry but i have seen a numerous posts from you that don't make sense , your seriusly overestimating China's military , and seriusly underestimating Russia's military and sometimes US , in most of your posts.
China can not even come close to Russia , yet alone USA in military power..
Maybe they will come close in 30 years , or maybe not , but at the moment they are nowhere near.. doesnt matter how many soldiers they have.
And Russia already is a major military power , when did they go out of that league ? 2nd biggest airforce , 2nd biggest navy , biggest tank \ artillery numbers , good power projection , and don't even say how the training sucks because its getting better every year , its not 1993 anymore , and its still far better than Chinese.
Just for the record , UK is also a major military power , they have imo 3rd navy , 3rd airforce , with consideration of the training , they also have strong power projection.
So USA,Russia,UK = Major Military powers
Chine= Nowhere near


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?
True Iran has millions of soldiers , but in that kind of war with UK it wouldn't mean much as UK would have air supriority and support from the sea , soldiers don't mean much when you don't have a strong airforce and lose air supriority ur gonna get kicked hard..
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
France is not in the same league like the UK?

In the end France and the UK are so close in military capabilities as one can get.
While the Brits have more amphibious capabilities (Not that France doesn't have their own) France has a clear lead in naval aviation till the new british CVs arrive and than they will be also close together with 2 CV(N)s on both sides.

Nuclear weapons arsenals are comparable but the brits scrapped everything except their Tridents while France remains also in posession of other delivery capabilities (ASMP,...) than SLBMs.

Both armed forces are fully professionals and are concentrating on oversea deployments. France has the plus that they can send the foreign legion to hotspots. The advantage is that the french public is much less interested if it is dangerous or some legionaires die compared to normal troops.

Both armed forces were engaged in numerous hot areas all around the globe since WWII.

Military spending is also close and while the UK spends more France doesn't have to pay that much for two ongoing wars and its forces are not that stretched.

BTW, we defenitely have not enough French comrades here.
This is not the first time I have to write in their favor... :D
 

XaNDeR

New Member
Sorry Waylander but i disagree , while French army is quite close as the british and is 1 of my favorites and i like french navy alot , i belive britain has a better force projection , and better airforce ( eurofighters vs rafales ).
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Based on what?

I already said that the amphibious capabilities of the Brits are better but France has a operational CVN which is way ahead of naval aviation compared to everything the UK has.
I also adressed the other services and for a comparison of EF and Rafale I recommend Scorpion82s thread to you.
 

f-22fan12

New Member
-I agree , Pakistan and Iran won't become major military powers..
-But for the power projection , France and China are not in the same league as USA , UK and Russia , and USA is in a higher league even.





Sorry but i have seen a numerous posts from you that don't make sense , your seriusly overestimating China's military , and seriusly underestimating Russia's military and sometimes US , in most of your posts.
China can not even come close to Russia , yet alone USA in military power..
Maybe they will come close in 30 years , or maybe not , but at the moment they are nowhere near.. doesnt matter how many soldiers they have.
And Russia already is a major military power , when did they go out of that league ? 2nd biggest airforce , 2nd biggest navy , biggest tank \ artillery numbers , good power projection , and don't even say how the training sucks because its getting better every year , its not 1993 anymore , and its still far better than Chinese.
Just for the record , UK is also a major military power , they have imo 3rd navy , 3rd airforce , with consideration of the training , they also have strong power projection.
So USA,Russia,UK = Major Military powers
Chine= Nowhere near




True Iran has millions of soldiers , but in that kind of war with UK it wouldn't mean much as UK would have air supriority and support from the sea , soldiers don't mean much when you don't have a strong airforce and lose air supriority ur gonna get kicked hard..
First, France is in the EXACT same league as the U.K.
Second, I don't "overestimate" China's military. I know large numbers of soldiers don't mean a thing. But China has growing wealth which they use to buy advanced weaponry. After they but the advanced weaponry from Russia, they copy it. Then they have it on their own. Also any country with alot of money can spend on R&D.

About Russia's military. The Russian air force is second in the world in terms of capability for sure. But the army? NO. They may have the most tanks, artillery, and other equipment. But that doesn't mean a thing. You have to look at the tanks that are worthy in today's combat. That would be the T-80 and T-90. Not models below that. Do you know how many T-80s and T-90s Russia has? NOT SO MANY. Less that 250 T-90's and I don't know how many T-80s. Those are the effective and capable tanks. Not anything below. Russia's Navy is certainly not the second most powerful. That title is held by the Royal navy. Russia's nuclear sub. fleet is in a state of reduction and despair. ONE or two aircraft carrier(s), (very old) isn't great either.

So overall I agree about them having a great air force, but their army and navy are NOT second.

I also know China doesn't have great power projection now. But it will happen soon. (15-20 years) Their ability to buy alot with their money and copy the Russian weaponry they buy so much of will make them powerful. They also have the carrier Varyg for "testing"

And I NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE MILITARY OF THE U.S., I'M AMERICAN. :)
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Based on what?

I already said that the amphibious capabilities of the Brits are better but France has a operational CVN which is way ahead of naval aviation compared to everything the UK has.
I also adressed the other services and for a comparison of EF and Rafale I recommend Scorpion82s thread to you.
Frances naval aviation is considerably better than the RNs (CdG with a squadron of Rafales, E-2 & Super Etendard being able to provide a lot more air cover than a couple of Invincibles with Harrier GR7 - or even GR9 - & Sea King AEW), until CdG goes into dock. Until she comes out again (next year?), the RN is overwhelmingly superior in naval aviation, to add to its much greater capacity not only in amphibs, but in the logistical capacity to project power - oilers & other supply ships, & organic transport (I love those ro-ros!), as well as the surface strike capability of its SSNs.
 

XaNDeR

New Member
First, France is in the EXACT same league as the U.K.
Second, I don't "overestimate" China's military. I know large numbers of soldiers don't mean a thing. But China has growing wealth which they use to buy advanced weaponry. After they but the advanced weaponry from Russia, they copy it. Then they have it on their own. Also any country with alot of money can spend on R&D.

About Russia's military. The Russian air force is second in the world in terms of capability for sure. But the army? NO. They may have the most tanks, artillery, and other equipment. But that doesn't mean a thing. You have to look at the tanks that are worthy in today's combat. That would be the T-80 and T-90. Not models below that. Do you know how many T-80s and T-90s Russia has? NOT SO MANY. Less that 250 T-90's and I don't know how many T-80s. Those are the effective and capable tanks. Not anything below. Russia's Navy is certainly not the second most powerful. That title is held by the Royal navy. Russia's nuclear sub. fleet is in a state of reduction and despair. ONE or two aircraft carrier(s), (very old) isn't great either.

So overall I agree about them having a great air force, but their army and navy are NOT second.

I also know China doesn't have great power projection now. But it will happen soon. (15-20 years) Their ability to buy alot with their money and copy the Russian weaponry they buy so much of will make them powerful. They also have the carrier Varyg for "testing"

And I NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE MILITARY OF THE U.S., I'M AMERICAN. :)

Your talking about China in the Future here , im talking about china now , and they certainly are not in the same league as US , Russia , UK even France. numbers are not all...
China may have more numbers in airforce or army as lets say UK , but that is nothing compared to british BVR ( airforce) , fighters , training , capability...
So sorry but china is not on the top 4 list , not near...
I would ask you politely to ask about China's force capability now , not in the future , because you can't know how strong china will be , its possible it will be a superpower , its possible that not .. and if it will be a superpower its certainly not gonna happen in 15 years like you said..
I want your comment on this please..

For the tanks , yes , i agree T-90 and T-80 are very capable , i have to remind you that Russia has more than 3000 T-80 tanks , thanks very much.
And the 10.000 T-72's they have are not old versions but upgraded and quite capable ..
Im sure i don't have to remind you of russian MLRS , as they are the most capable systems .. with highest range of missiles
I also wish to hear what navy apart the US has a stronger force projection than Russia? Sure the brits have more training , but lets be realistic , 12 subs can not even come close to scratching 60 submarines with a far greater range of torpedoes than the brits have.
The surface fleet also , brits have 2 carriers but they are relativly small and russia naval aviation has Tu-22's and very capable ships as Kirov , Slava , Sovremenny's .. etc. Britain's type 42 destroyers are quite capable and are the best chance against russian surface fleet , but Russian missiles have a far bigger range ..

Comments please


I would also ask you something , you say your a american , then why are you talking in such a manner about US military , your talking that China has better this better that , that soon they will became stronger ... that really suprizes me , maybe you dont realize that your saying it..

Comments please :)
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Frances naval aviation is considerably better than the RNs (CdG with a squadron of Rafales, E-2 & Super Etendard being able to provide a lot more air cover than a couple of Invincibles with Harrier GR7 - or even GR9 - & Sea King AEW), until CdG goes into dock. Until she comes out again (next year?), the RN is overwhelmingly superior in naval aviation, to add to its much greater capacity not only in amphibs, but in the logistical capacity to project power - oilers & other supply ships, & organic transport (I love those ro-ros!), as well as the surface strike capability of its SSNs.
For sure it is a pain in the ass for france that they just have one operational carrier and so are hampered very much and because of that they are so keen on getting sa second one.

I just wanted to make clear that France is not an entire other league than the UK.
And while the UK has an advantage in naval assets (Beside carriers, when CdG is operational) there is not much of a gap in the other services.

French bashing and wrong assumptions about their capabilities are very popular sometimes... ;)
 

mexsoldier

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #113
America is powerful...

if you have studied American history (i have studied one year :) in California), and if you know about the huge mobilization in the second world war, and the time that US did it, you never will say that the Chinese are better than the Americans, maybe in the future, but not now, when America was in the last years of the great depression, everybody in Europe was in a weapon race, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Russia, united states had the 6th or the 8th military in the world, but in less than 3 years US become the 1st, how?, as you guys know, the Americans changed what they was producing, cars become tanks, the ratiocination was imposed, and if you have a strongly motivated people, you have an excellent army. now , the united states is the most capable, better trained, and the one with the better weapons, these persons that never have been in America don' know how powerful is the American army, the united states can train millions and millions of people in single months and send them to the war, that was America did in the time America was comparable to the present Pakistan or Iran, America has enough oil reserves to fight a war of 8 to 12 months, enough time to take Iran or any other country, the British are very good, but they lack of those 10 or more million of college students than can go to the war, the French are the same, they have the technology, but they lack of the people, the Russians have large amounts of weapons, but they are as old as 20 years, compare an aircraft of that time with a eurofighter? now the Chinese, they have as much soldiers as the the 5 top armies, but they lack of the technology and the infrastructure to research that, you know, everything is designed in Europe, japan or America, but is made with the people of china or India. they could do the same as US in the world war 2, but by that time, with the technology of this time they could be destroyed.
 

XaNDeR

New Member
if you have studied American history (i have studied one year :) in California), and if you know about the huge mobilization in the second world war, and the time that US did it, you never will say that the Chinese are better than the Americans, maybe in the future, but not now, when America was in the last years of the great depression, everybody in Europe was in a weapon race, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Russia, united states had the 6th or the 8th military in the world, but in less than 3 years US become the 1st, how?, as you guys know, the Americans changed what they was producing, cars become tanks, the ratiocination was imposed, and if you have a strongly motivated people, you have an excellent army. now , the united states is the most capable, better trained, and the one with the better weapons, these persons that never have been in America don' know how powerful is the American army, the united states can train millions and millions of people in single months and send them to the war, that was America did in the time America was comparable to the present Pakistan or Iran, America has enough oil reserves to fight a war of 8 to 12 months, enough time to take Iran or any other country, the British are very good, but they lack of those 10 or more million of college students than can go to the war, the French are the same, they have the technology, but they lack of the people, the Russians have large amounts of weapons, but they are as old as 20 years, compare an aircraft of that time with a eurofighter? now the Chinese, they have as much soldiers as the the 5 top armies, but they lack of the technology and the infrastructure to research that, you know, everything is designed in Europe, japan or America, but is made with the people of china or India. they could do the same as US in the world war 2, but by that time, with the technology of this time they could be destroyed.
I don't understand what your trying to say with this post , as i agree somewhat with your assumption that america did mobilize so fast and produced alot of tanks and weapons , but germans and soviets produced more tanks and aircraft ..
You said british are very good but lack 10 or more million college students that can go to war? hm i dont understand that at all , what do college students have to do with war? and britain has enough soldiers , they don't need 2 million like China because they have a powerfull airforce and navy , in modern warfare soldiers are good , but having air or naval supriority is more important.
You said French have tehnology but they lack the people , ok , they have quite good tehnology , and they have enough manpower , they don't need 2 million soldiers like I already said before..
French have a powerfull navy and airforce and for example if your comparing a war with iran , they would not need 2 million soldiers , this is not World War I anymore , where soldiers on the battlefield were the most important factor , today its all about tehnology , range , airforce supriority , naval support..
You said Russia has big numbers of weapons but they are old as 20 years , first of all how old is US F-15? or 90% of weapons in USA , its more than 40 years old yet still 1st class , because its beeing modernized , all the old russian stuff is modernized its not from 80's anymore.. and they are also making so much new tehnological advanced things , Pak-Fa, Pak-Da , Frigate, Borei SSBN , anti air systems .. new battle tank .. etc
Your assumption of China is quite correct they have a huge army but lack tehnology , but you forget China is improving at a incredible rate , and if they keep it up they can quicly become very strong , we will have too see but china does have the best potential to became a powerfull millitary force..
 

mexsoldier

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #116
the thing i want to say...

the only thing i want to say is that manpower is very important when you have a threat with advanced technology as you, it is not very important when you have better technology, but it is when you have the same level, and these college students are the yopung people able to fight, a very very formidable quantity.
 

sashikanth

New Member
End of the era!!!

The era of one superpower v/s the other super power, like the usa v/s. soviot union.These days are over. I think the future conflicts are going to be betwees a group of countries comming together. The days of superpowerism are OVER. The future of conflicts belongs to alliances.Maybe the communist alliances,the islamist alliances, maybe geographical alliances etc. :unknown
 

T-95

New Member
The era of one superpower v/s the other super power, like the usa v/s. soviot union.These days are over. I think the future conflicts are going to be betwees a group of countries comming together. The days of superpowerism are OVER. The future of conflicts belongs to alliances.Maybe the communist alliances,the islamist alliances, maybe geographical alliances etc. :unknown
No, it's not. Look at China and the US. One is an indestructible superpower and the other one is on the way to becoming one. And groups of countries coming together based on a common ideology, religion or enemy is nothing new.
 

T-95

New Member
I would also ask you something , you say your a american , then why are you talking in such a manner about US military , your talking that China has better this better that , that soon they will became stronger ... that really suprizes me , maybe you dont realize that your saying it..

Comments please :)
China is far from being stronger than America. Maybe 50 years from now they'll be as strong.
 

mexsoldier

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #120
what is the purpose of a war?...

i think that in the future there will be more geographical alli=ances and less single countries, why?, we don't know in this time the exact reason, maybe globalization, economic convinence or whatever, but think about this, what will happen if large, vey large superpowers fight?, only the destruction of our planet, europe against middle east, united states against china, that is very dangerous because it is more quatity of everything, more soldiers, more bombs equals more destruction...but, whatever maybe i will be not there when that happens...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top