What is a military superpower?

[F-15 Eagle]

I always hear the word military superpower when talking about the U.S. military and that the U.K. is a small superpower and Russia and China are rising superpowers. But what makes a country a military superpower? Is it the size of their armed forces? Could it be power projection? Maybe having the resources to sustain a powerful military. So what is a military superpower? What do you think makes a country a superpower?

 

[Rythm]

the term lacks a proper definition and can be used as one wants to. Generally the US is considered to be the last superpower.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

the term lacks a proper definition and can be used as one wants to. Generally the US is considered to be the last superpower.

And what makes the U.S. the last superpower?

 

[Grand Danois]

Global reach with full spectrum response capability.

 

[rattmuff]

I always hear the word military superpower when talking about the U.S. military and that the U.K. is a small superpower and Russia and China are rising superpowers. But what makes a country a military superpower? Is it the size of their armed forces? Could it be power projection? Maybe having the resources to sustain a powerful military. So what is a military superpower? What do you think makes a country a superpower?

A superpower per my definition can without any problem take out another "smallish" country or at least ruin it pretty good militarily and economic without taking any serious damage it self compared to the one it intended to defeat.
A superpower has global influence, militarily and economic. If the superpower has the will to dominate mankind, it can; if destroying - no problem.

A superpower have the capability to reach out and punch really hard at any time, any where... if it wants that.

 

[radiosilence]

And what makes the U.S. the last superpower?

The ability to fight in multiple theaters simultaneously is one of major requirements IMO.

 

[nevidimka]

The sheer amount of force a country can project.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Global reach with full spectrum response capability.

True but there a lot of countries that can do this, such as the U.S., Russia and the U.K.

A superpower per my definition can without any problem take out another "smallish" country or at least ruin it pretty good militarily and economic without taking any serious damage it self compared to the one it intended to defeat.
A superpower has global influence, militarily and economic. If the superpower has the will to dominate mankind, it can; if destroying - no problem.

A superpower have the capability to reach out and punch really hard at any time, any where... if it wants that.

Well waging a war can still hurt a superpower economicly and some of the equipment can be worn out but those problems can be fixed.

The ability to fight in multiple theaters simultaneously is one of major requirements IMO.

A superpower has to have a large enogh military to do that without being overstretched, the U.S. military is adding 92,000 troops because of this but in my opinion I think they should add at least one million more personel.

The sheer amount of force a country can project.

That would be troops, tanks, jets, artillery, ships and so on, but there are a lot of other countries that can do that, its just that some can do it more than others.

 

[Grand Danois]

True but there a lot of countries that can do this, such as the U.S., Russia and the U.K.

Not full spectrum. An example: you need them supercarriers.

 

[battlensign]

We need to distinguish superpower, hyperpower and great power.

Brett.

 

[Todjaeger]

Incidentally, I would think that there is no such thing as military superpower. A nation's "power" is not measured just by the size of their military, and/or its capability. Other capabilities and factors, like economic power, technological and industrial bases and diplomatic influence play a part.

What really (IMV) makes a superpower, is how the sum total compares to most/all other nations. A superpower would have the ability to significantly effect a nation/events on a global scale, to a degree head and shoulders above most other nations. A major/great power would likely still have a global reach, but of lesser effect once outside of traditonal areas of influence. A minor power would likely have only little effect worldwide, but could still retain significant strengths in a regional context.

-Cheers

 

[F-15 Eagle]

In my opinion having a nuclear arsenal also plays a part in being a major military power of some sort. Were they can be deployed from missiles, bombers, subs and aircraft carriers.

 

[riksavage]

My minimum criteria would be:

• Nuclear Weapons coupled with the ability to strike anywhere on the planet;
• Force Projection - Being able to sustain combined military operations outside ones immediate borders;
• Professional armed forces (zero corruption), and
• Economic stability, stong economy with a good infrastructure to sustain military operations financially.

 

[funtz]

My minimum criteria would be:

• Nuclear Weapons coupled with the ability to strike anywhere on the planet;
• Force Projection - Being able to sustain combined military operations outside ones immediate borders;
• Professional armed forces (zero corruption), and
• Economic stability, strong economy with a good infrastructure to sustain military operations financially.

That zero corruption might end up being a problem on earth.
Soviets were a superpower, i guess the last ones to compete.

All it seems to be about is,
A huge inventory of indigenous weapons(land, air, sea), a host of allies and client states. All need money though and loads of it.

 

[Rythm]

I think we should not forget:

*Prepared to use all military power at any given time (like threatening a small country with nuclear weapons)

*Not adhere to international laws and customs, other than if it gians something by it (Like ignoring the international war crminals court).

 

[Titanium]

I think we should not forget:

*Prepared to use all military power at any given time (like threatening a small country with nuclear weapons)

*Not adhere to international laws and customs, other than if it gians something by it (Like ignoring the international war crminals court).

No argument about that, Add able to have mass media to invent terms.

Indiscriminate bombing is collateral damage.

All killed are affiliated, franchise, of so and so...no matter how starange both are.

Those who support wars are "embedded" Journalist, showing the glorious romance of war.

 

[nevidimka]

I think some of the description is way off. Bringing in economics n corruption n stuff.

N i also dont think nuclear weapons alone can be a descripion of a superpower. Otherwise pakistan n israel can be called a superpower.

If you look at the soviets, they have huge n deadly naval fleet, in the pacific, north fleet n black sea fleet, all capable of waging war on each sides of the globe. Combined with their aurmoured and atillery inventory unmatched by other countries. Soviets also had and air force that can strike anywhere in the world at any time.

Whilst the US had thier fleet of cariers which can project devastatin force as well as an air arm that can also strike anywhere in the world.

Countries like China, France, Uk are no where near the capability to project powers like these 2 could on multiple frontiers.

That is why i came out with the argument, the " sheer force 1 can project".

 

[riksavage]

My comments about nuclear weapons was tied to the caveat that they MUST be able to hit anywhere on the planet, that limits countries to the following: US, UK, France, China & Russia.

Economic power and stability is a crucial factor in waging war - if you can't finance your military operations (weapons, logistics, pay) morale will collapse, supply chains will fail resulting in a rapid deterioration of fighting ability. Look at North Korea - huge standing army, economic basket case!

The Russian Navy is a shadow of it's former self, they have only just managed to scrape together a fleet to enter the Mediterranean in force (11 ships) after a gap of 15 years, lead by one of the few remaining fully operational cruisers. The Russian armed forces are riddled with corruption, which has resulted in a deterioration of material and man-power (officer class in particular).

 

[nevidimka]

If having nukes that can hit anywhere in the world makes a superpower, that would make, Russia, US,UK,France,China n very soon India all superpowers. So i feel its not an accurate description.

Regarding economic power. During the world war2 Russia didnt have the strength of economy like in the west, yet they faught the war with such deadly force that they overwhelmed the more modern n dedicated German army n eventually defeated them. It was that military might might that made them a superpower.

My comments was also regarding the Soviet navy, not the Russian navy of the present state.

 

[riksavage]

The comment about Nuclear weapons was just one of my criteria for Superpower status. How can you be classed as a Superpower in todays nuclear age if you are nuclear free. The destructive power of nuclear weapons brings to the table an unprecedented edge over a conventionally armed enemy.

Russia's struggle against Nazi Germany was a momentous affair, which from a WWII perspective was the most costly in life and material. It had the greatest impact on Germany's ability to wage war. But don't forget the lend lease act, millions of tons of material and support provided by Allies. The arctic convoys contributed to Stalin's success. Without support form the West, Russia would have had an even harder time surviving. Trucks supplied by the US were critical in maintaining Russia's supply chain for one. So my point stands, you need a strong economy if you intend going it alone.