Military Power Ranking 2013.

  • 114 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by Palantas (15322 posts) -

well we would just be pissing that money away feeding people, maintaining the infrastructure and educating the next generation anyway so may as well do something good with it instead of that worthless crap.

Riverwolf007

Yeah. Because that's what we do with the rest of the money. The government provides a model of benevolence and mentorship to its citizens apart from defense spending.

#52 Posted by AncientDozer (8128 posts) -

it all comes down to this, $$$.

Riverwolf007
Well, yeah. It's expensive to train volunteers. Even more when you have a lot of them. Even more when you want to keep training consistent across the board. Even more when you want to equip them with good, um, equipment.
#53 Posted by whipassmt (14028 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Where's Mordor rank on that list?

GamerForca

Nowhere. The destruction of the One Ring seems to have had a devastating effect on their military.

oh man. Sauron should've made a back up copy of his ring.

#54 Posted by kingkong0124 (8710 posts) -

Nice to see the U.S. where we belong

#55 Posted by Cefryd (62 posts) -

After digging around a little bit I found that America spends more on her military each year than Nazi Germany did leading up to, and at the start of World War II. That's actually quite concerning. :shock:

 Sources: here and here

#56 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

I assume Russia still being #2 is based off nukes?

#57 Posted by wis3boi (31367 posts) -

I assume Russia still being #2 is based off nukes?

Pirate700

Probably.  Countires that have nukes don't get invaded.  I'd say MAD has done a wonderful job of preventing world wars

#58 Posted by lamprey263 (23871 posts) -
looks like they weighed it on a number of factors, in spending I think Russia would be number 3 because China spends 2nd most but Russia probably has a lot of carry over in strength from their military from the Cold War
#59 Posted by Blue-Sky (10325 posts) -

1. United States of America

.

.

.

.
102. Russia
103. China
104. India
105. United Kingdom
106. France 
107. Germany 
108. South Korea 
109. Italy 
110. Brazil 
111. Turkey
112. Pakistan
113. Israel
114. Egypt
115. Indonesia
116. Iran
117. Japan
118. Taiwan 
119. Canada
120. Thailand
121. Mexico
122. Ukraine
123. Australia 
124. Poland 
125. Vietnam
126. Sweden
127. Saudi Arabia 
128. North Korea
129 . Ethiopia
130. Spain
131. Philippines 
132. Switzerland
133. Malaysia
134. South Africa
135. Argentina
136. Nigeria
137. Austria
138. Algeria
139. Syria
140. Venezuela
141. Colombia
142. Norway
143. Yemen
144. Denmark
145. Finland
146. Kenya
147. Singapore
148. Afghanistan
149. Greece
150. Romania
151. Serbia
152. Chile
153. Belgium
154. Croatia
155. Portugal
156. Jordan
157. United Arab Emirates
158. Iraq
159. Libya
160. Georgia
161. Mongolia
162. Paraguay
163. Kuwait
164. Nepal
165. Qatar
166. Lebanon
167. Uruguay
168. Panama

Source.

loco145

FTFY

If we're going to go just by dollar amount. 

#60 Posted by one_plum (6352 posts) -

So, do Americans still believe that their they could overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical?

#61 Posted by Aljosa23 (24941 posts) -

So, do Americans still believe that their they could overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical?

one_plum

Of course. All Americans need is the second amendment.

#62 Posted by Big_Pecks (5305 posts) -

Let's be real. Anything below 3 is a supporting role.

#63 Posted by 4myAmuzumament (1750 posts) -
any country that isn't number 1 doesn't matter honestly
#64 Posted by 00-Riddick-00 (18884 posts) -
Russia #2? Wtf?
#65 Posted by wis3boi (31367 posts) -

Russia #2? Wtf?00-Riddick-00

 

BTl2SST.jpg

#66 Posted by sherman-tank1 (8133 posts) -

This list is a joke with Russia at #2. The only thing Russia has is nukes, their military is awful. It takes them decades to beat a bunch of scrubs in Chenchanya. Poor weapons, poor equipment, poor moral, a shell of a navy. Russia shouldn't even be in the top 5.

#67 Posted by Wasdie (49901 posts) -

So, do Americans still believe that their they could overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical?

one_plum

All of our tanks, planes, and nukes have done such a great job in the middle east the last 10 years. I'm sure that they would do equally as well as a volunteer military turns on its own families and friends.

#68 Posted by loco145 (10771 posts) -

This list is a joke with Russia at #2. The only thing Russia has is nukes, their military is awful. It takes them decades to beat a bunch of scrubs in Chenchanya. Poor weapons, poor equipment, poor moral, a shell of a navy. Russia shouldn't even be in the top 5.

sherman-tank1
The same way the USA is taking decades to beat the Taliban.
#69 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3885 posts) -

I never knew Brazil was so powerfulCapitan_Kid
it's the world's 7th biggest economy.

#70 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1551 posts) -

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]I never knew Brazil was so powerfulMakeMeaSammitch

it's the world's 7th biggest economy.

They have money in Brazil?

#71 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3885 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]I never knew Brazil was so powerfulStrifeDelivery

it's the world's 7th biggest economy.

They have money in Brazil?

eh.....sorta. They do have alot of poor people. 

#72 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

That's impressive, a list of countries by military power that isn't totally fvcked. Russia is too high though, they couldn't take China or India in a war in their current state.

#73 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

After digging around a little bit I found that America spends more on her military each year than Nazi Germany did leading up to, and at the start of World War II. That's actually quite concerning. :shock:

 Sources: here and here

Cefryd

Lol illiteracy

#74 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5300 posts) -
Canada has a military? :lol:
#75 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5300 posts) -

After digging around a little bit I found that America spends more on her military each year than Nazi Germany did leading up to, and at the start of World War II. That's actually quite concerning. :shock:

 Sources: here and here

Cefryd
:lol: No.
#76 Posted by KungfuKitten (21047 posts) -

How can you objectively construct a list like that? It's not like we actually know the military power of any country >__>

#77 Posted by KungfuKitten (21047 posts) -

[QUOTE="killerfist"][QUOTE="MrPraline"]rofl .NLMrPraline

en dat is met die kut JSF lol

Actually we have developed a tech to blow up the world. Not that that is super useful but it does eliminate the usefulness of any conventional army against us. And we have two atom bombs underground. We're also doing well at developing biological weaponry through fighting cancer. But most of that is not common knowledge. I don't think they even considered any of it for the list.
The true power of a country is its people. We took the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland as a joke. The Dutch have won a war in America without firing a shot. We had the European seas not because of our fleet but because of the pirates. Hey if someone else wants to do all the work for us there is no need to decline.
Then Hitler pays a visit and we're gone in like 2 days. Ok, ok. So maybe our history isn't all glamorous. Fine. We're still awesome.

#78 Posted by PcGamingRig (7085 posts) -

let's invade panama for the nice holiday weather.

#79 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16098 posts) -

I find it interesting the Philippines (which use jet trainers as frontline fighters, hardle any armor aside from some APCs, and an inadequate navy) ahead of the throughly modern armed forces of Singapore and Malaysia. They're adequate enough to deal with guerilla/insurgent units. But, against a major invasion by an external power? Probably not. I guess they still depend on that US defense umbrella.

#80 Posted by GrayF0X786 (3850 posts) -

interesting list.

#81 Posted by Diablo-B (4039 posts) -
Any one below Canada should be ashamed of themselves.
#82 Posted by ThePoliteArtist (240 posts) -

Surprised the UK is that high. 

#83 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

This list would have been a lot more interesting if it didn't include nukes as a factor. I doubt Russia would make the top 10.

#84 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

This list would have been a lot more interesting if it didn't include nukes as a factor. I doubt Russia would make the top 10.

Pirate700
Wish it had their history as well.Would love to see how they've changed over time.
#85 Posted by Postal_Guy (2643 posts) -

[QUOTE="killerfist"][QUOTE="MrPraline"]rofl .NLMrPraline

en dat is met die kut JSF lol

Welke JSF? ik heb er nog geen gezien XD

NL not on there but Belgium is? I call BS, the whole purpose of our military is to scare the Belgians

#86 Posted by loco145 (10771 posts) -

let's invade panama for the nice holiday weather.

PcGamingRig
Again?
#87 Posted by tjricardo089 (7429 posts) -

Portugal is only number 55, we good.

#88 Posted by one_plum (6352 posts) -

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

So, do Americans still believe that their they could overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical?

Wasdie

All of our tanks, planes, and nukes have done such a great job in the middle east the last 10 years. I'm sure that they would do equally as well as a volunteer military turns on its own families and friends.

If the US really became tyrannical, it wouldn't hold back like it does right now in the ME.

#89 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

So, do Americans still believe that their they could overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical?

one_plum
what makes you think they could not? do you think the military would endorse nuking American soil? how would the government fight the people? with tanks and jets? how would the fighting take place? even in "modern" warfare, the nation that spends more than the next 30 or whatever nations cant even put down the forces of desert dirt farmers, and they have the help of other top tier nations...
#90 Posted by one_plum (6352 posts) -

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

So, do Americans still believe that their they could overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical?

surrealnumber5

what makes you think they could not? do you think the military would endorse nuking American soil? how would the government fight the people? with tanks and jets? how would the fighting take place? even in "modern" warfare, the nation that spends more than the next 30 or whatever nations cant even put down the forces of desert dirt farmers, and they have the help of other top tier nations...

You're comparing an army that's holding back its firepower with terrorists who are throwing everything they got.

#91 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1551 posts) -

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="one_plum"]

So, do Americans still believe that their they could overthrow their government if it becomes tyrannical?

one_plum

what makes you think they could not? do you think the military would endorse nuking American soil? how would the government fight the people? with tanks and jets? how would the fighting take place? even in "modern" warfare, the nation that spends more than the next 30 or whatever nations cant even put down the forces of desert dirt farmers, and they have the help of other top tier nations...

You're comparing an army that's holding back its firepower with terrorists who are throwing everything they got.

Holding back its firepower? What exactly do you mean? You mean like nukes? You mean the ENTIRE US armed forces?

#92 Posted by one_plum (6352 posts) -

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

You're comparing an army that's holding back its firepower with terrorists who are throwing everything they got.

StrifeDelivery

Holding back its firepower? What exactly do you mean? You mean like nukes? You mean the ENTIRE US armed forces?

Selective targeting and relatively tame drone strikes as opposed to indiscriminate targeting of both civilians and terrorists.

#93 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

You're comparing an army that's holding back its firepower with terrorists who are throwing everything they got.

one_plum

Holding back its firepower? What exactly do you mean? You mean like nukes? You mean the ENTIRE US armed forces?

Selective targeting and relatively tame drone strikes as opposed to indiscriminate targeting of both civilians and terrorists.

so in your view, the us government will just start indiscriminately targeting its population with its population and that is how it will put down the population? seems like solid thinking.
#94 Posted by one_plum (6352 posts) -

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

Holding back its firepower? What exactly do you mean? You mean like nukes? You mean the ENTIRE US armed forces?

surrealnumber5

Selective targeting and relatively tame drone strikes as opposed to indiscriminate targeting of both civilians and terrorists.

so in your view, the us government will just start indiscriminately targeting its population with its population and that is how it will put down the population? seems like solid thinking.

If the government doesn't try using violent means to oppress a revolting population, then they're not really tyrannical.

If they're not really tyrannical, then there must be peaceful alternatives.

#95 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="one_plum"]

Selective targeting and relatively tame drone strikes as opposed to indiscriminate targeting of both civilians and terrorists.

one_plum

so in your view, the us government will just start indiscriminately targeting its population with its population and that is how it will put down the population? seems like solid thinking.

If the government doesn't try using violent means to oppress a revolting population, then they're not really tyrannical.

If they're not really tyrannical, then there must be peaceful alternatives.

>indiscriminately
#96 Posted by whiskeystrike (12068 posts) -

one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen. US military is made up of VOLUNTEERS.

----

On topic, I kind of expected Vietnam to be higher.

#97 Posted by The_Lipscomb (2194 posts) -

I wish the U.S would take focus on the great amount of military spending.. It's just not neccessary.. We are powerful enough.

#98 Posted by Wasdie (49901 posts) -

I wish the U.S would take focus on the great amount of military spending.. It's just not neccessary.. We are powerful enough.

The_Lipscomb

It's not just about being powerful. The military spending creates literally millions of US manufacturing jobs in a sector that is in desperate need of the industry. We don't just export those jobs to China. They stay here in America.

It's one of the only direct social spending that I really can agree with 100%. People say just take that money and put it back into the economy. Well... that's exactly what military spending does. Even these like 80 billion cuts have threatened some job loss and furloughs. 

#99 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"]

I wish the U.S would take focus on the great amount of military spending.. It's just not neccessary.. We are powerful enough.

Wasdie

It's not just about being powerful. The military spending creates literally millions of US manufacturing jobs in a sector that is in desperate need of the industry. We don't just export those jobs to China. They stay here in America.

It's one of the only direct social spending that I really can agree with 100%. People say just take that money and put it back into the economy. Well... that's exactly what military spending does. Even these like 80 billion cuts have threatened some job loss and furloughs. 

Or we could take that money and use it for things that actually create something useful that makes people's lives better.
#100 Posted by Wasdie (49901 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"]

I wish the U.S would take focus on the great amount of military spending.. It's just not neccessary.. We are powerful enough.

Person0

It's not just about being powerful. The military spending creates literally millions of US manufacturing jobs in a sector that is in desperate need of the industry. We don't just export those jobs to China. They stay here in America.

It's one of the only direct social spending that I really can agree with 100%. People say just take that money and put it back into the economy. Well... that's exactly what military spending does. Even these like 80 billion cuts have threatened some job loss and furloughs. 

Or we could take that money and use it for things that actually create something useful that makes people's lives better.

Jobs aren't useful? That's news to me.

Or are you talking about the government directly investing into the private sector to make products for its own people? I'm sorry, that doesn't sound like capitalism.