Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
Joined
·
20,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This article uses the term "army" to mean the more generic term 'military.' While an interesting read of diverse military hardware, I want to focus on the bottom line dollars spent:
5. Japan $49B
4. India $61B
3. China $237B
2. Russia $48B
1. USA $750B​
Now these numbers are for one year only but there is very little in the spending pattern that is normal. IMO, men cannot have such expensive toys, year over year, and not yearn to play with them from time to time. From a US-centric perspective, China's ambition cannot be denied.

I recall decades ago the debate over making Communist China a MFN, Most Favored Nation, for strategic reasons rather than an assessment of reality. The strategy supposed we can defeat the communist country by trading with it so that we develop mutual interests. Thereby, turn our enemy into an ally. Sounds great in theory but I fear we will rue the day we ever decided to give the commie's the $ to become, in the words of the article, 'a growing adversary to the U.S.' Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,157 Posts
Couple that with the fact that China will pay its manufacturers exactly what China wants to pay - not what the manufacturers want. Also, their workers and military are getting paid pennies on the dollar compared to the US...easy to make the argument that China is actually buying/doing more than the US, even though they spend significantly less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,545 Posts
That's interesting. Are they the best because the others suck, or are FAR smaller, or what? The money spent doesn't seem to be helping China as much as one would think.

Considering that China can "buy" things in their own economy for pennies on the dollar as compared to the rest of us, there is a lot of wiggle room in the reality the authors think they are presenting.

Kind of meaningless statistics as presented.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,786 Posts
The problem with the idea that trading with China would fix the Communism problem is that at the end of the day, the Maoist government decided that they could get more money and power by letting a semblance of market economy come into existence. But the Communist party still rules, and will continue to rule. In fact, it HELPS them continue to rule. Because money is a sort of social opiate - things are going great for the Chinese economically compared to 20 years ago, so the people are willing to accept many things they otherwise might not.
 

·
Paramedic and ΜΟΛΩΝ &#923
Joined
·
3,053 Posts


Funding doesn't equate strength. We have lots of waste and fraud with the funds we pay for the military. One of the first things the powers that be cut is training and essential for the front line troops.

With that said, our experience in wars, our complete volunteer force and those that wear the uniform. We are head and shoulders above the rest of the world.

I am thankful for the military men and women who wear the uniform.
 

·
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
Joined
·
20,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
We all know spending does not equate to strength but it is a proxy, along with the military hardware purchased with the doe.

Regarding troop performance, there is such a thing as a force multiplier concept. It means something like a plane could drop enough bombs to take out 100,000 troops. (I once saw a table of what hardware had what force multiplier associated with it.

Someone thought England was more powerful than the 5 countries in the article. That was true in yester-year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,138 Posts
We all know spending does not equate to strength but it is a proxy, along with the military hardware purchased with the doe.

Regarding troop performance, there is such a thing as a force multiplier concept. It means something like a plane could drop enough bombs to take out 100,000 troops. (I once saw a table of what hardware had what force multiplier associated with it.

Someone thought England was more powerful than the 5 countries in the article. That was true in yester-year.
I'm saying Japan isn't top five . Maybe during WW2.
 

·
Paramedic and ΜΟΛΩΝ &#923
Joined
·
3,053 Posts
We all know spending does not equate to strength but it is a proxy, along with the military hardware purchased with the doe.

Regarding troop performance, there is such a thing as a force multiplier concept. It means something like a plane could drop enough bombs to take out 100,000 troops. (I once saw a table of what hardware had what force multiplier associated with it.
Well on this, you're off base. Our F35 project, the costliest in history is still a flop. Trump promised the navy would be at 350 ships and had the top brass come out saying they are not getting close to that number and their voices are not being heard. The AF is trying to (Still) do away with the Warthog with no replacement in sight. FY the Warthog is probably the biggest force multiplier in the history of warfare (IMO) and troop morale continues to drop.
 

·
Paramedic and ΜΟΛΩΝ &#923
Joined
·
3,053 Posts
I'm saying Japan isn't top five . Maybe during WW2.
I dunno. I think once you get out of the top 3, it's a toss-up based on the type of war. Japan, knowing history, knows they need a good navy for their region and have invested wisely and could blockade China and Russia off quickly from the control of the seas.


I guess that 5 spot could go to France (they will as always sit on their hands if something breaks out or eff it up) or Britain based on experience and the fact Canada and Australia automatically back them if something goes wrong.
 

·
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
Joined
·
20,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I'm saying Japan isn't top five . Maybe during WW2.
Can't generate a response to a fact free post like this.

Well on this, you're off base. Our F35 project, the costliest in history is still a flop. Trump promised the navy would be at 350 ships and had the top brass come out saying they are not getting close to that number and their voices are not being heard. The AF is trying to (Still) do away with the Warthog with no replacement in sight. FY the Warthog is probably the biggest force multiplier in the history of warfare (IMO) and troop morale continues to drop.
zumhug, do you have ADHD? Every sentence above is unrelated to the next.

While I'd have to re-read the article to see if Warthog was even included in the analysis, Japan's military has NEVER been as strong as it is since WWII. And another disturbing observation is other than the US, the rest of the top 5 are all in Asia.

Those who opine England and France have strong military's are, I believe, dealing with an obsolete world view. This is why I posted this article. In today's world, except for the US, the growing power is in the East.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,138 Posts
I went to the OPs source https ://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp Pretty lame Its like some gamers site.
 

·
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
Joined
·
20,320 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I went to the OPs source https ://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp Pretty lame Its like some gamers site.
Not as lame as you opposing the conclusions of the article with no facts at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
That's interesting. Are they the best because the others suck, or are FAR smaller, or what? The money spent doesn't seem to be helping China as much as one would think.

Considering that China can "buy" things in their own economy for pennies on the dollar as compared to the rest of us, there is a lot of wiggle room in the reality the authors think they are presenting.

Kind of meaningless statistics as presented.
It does show a commitment to each nation‘s militaries.

What worries me most about China these days is its a mono cultural nation composed of patriotic people.

You cannot say the same for the US.
 

·
Paramedic and ΜΟΛΩΝ &#923
Joined
·
3,053 Posts
zumhug, do you have ADHD? Every sentence above is unrelated to the next.
What's the point of being insulting? We are talking about the same thing.

Regarding troop performance, there is such a thing as a force multiplier concept.

Regarding troop performance, there is such a thing as a force multiplier concept. It means something like a plane could drop enough bombs to take out 100,000 troops. (I once saw a table of what hardware had what force multiplier associated with it.
So read what you typed again, then read my sentence. EVERY ONE of those goes towards the force multiplier you talked about. The F35, A10 and smaller less capable Navy all reduce the effectiveness of a force. Stop being so sensitive because I brought up Trump. The fact is fact in this case. Any article that doesn't bring up the A10 as a factor hasn't done their job and has no real clue about the morale that plane does when our troops see it on a strafing run.


While I'd have to re-read the article to see if Warthog was even included in the analysis, Japan's military has NEVER been as strong as it is since WWII. And another disturbing observation is other than the US, the rest of the top 5 are all in Asia.
No one said the Japanese military was what it once was.

I agree on the Asia point, which is why losing the TPP and not keeping Japan as close as possible is a huge mistake. Although, India hates China almost as much as they hate Pakistan.

Those who opine England and France have strong military's are, I believe, dealing with an obsolete world view. This is why I posted this article. In today's world, except for the US, the growing power is in the East.
You can "opine" all you want, the fact still remains that the UK is very capable, very well trained and willing to use its military. You've also discounted the fact, as I stated before, that England automatically brings Canada and Austalia into the war.

Just because the other powers are in the East, doesn't mean they ally with one another either.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top