Geostrategic Review: 15 most powerful countries 2014

Scofflaw

Found this mildly interesting, and not very far from my own impression of the relative capabilities of countries on the world stage.



http://www.europeangeostrategy.org/2014/01/european-geostrategy-audit-major-powers-worlds-fifteen-most-powerful-countries-2014/

If the image doesn't show, the top 10 and their strengths are:

Country|Strength|Type
US|100.0|Superpower
UK|48.6|Global Power
France|39.0|Regional Power
China|37.6|Regional Power
Russia|30.3|Regional Power
Japan|20.0|Regional Power
Germany|19.0|Regional Power
Australia|17.6|Regional Power
Canada|1.7|Regional Power
India|15.7|Regional Power


That suggests that the UK is more powerful than China or Russia, which is probably now true - I think familiarity blinds us rather the capabilities of our nearest neighbour, and encourages a rather contemptuous narrative of a 'failing Britain' that thinks much better of itself than it deserves. But the 'strength' figures are as a % of US strength, and the idea of a UK that's pretty much half as strong as the US is almost disturbing.

This review, on the other hand, suggests that the reason the UK thinks of itself as a global power is because it is one, and possibly the most powerful after its major ally the US.

You'd need to read the whole article for the full reasoning behind the ranking, but the reason powers like China and Russia don't come out so well is that their numerically impressive military forces are often poorly equipped, led, and trained, and lack the power to project strength much beyond their borders.

Not sure other people would find the rankings as intuitively likely as I do, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

Surprised that Israel is not on the list, considering it is based not on the overall size of armies but on technological, diplomatic and cultural factors, as well as ability to mobilise.

However, surely much if not most of the uks power derives from their "special relationship" with the US, their nuclear capacity is primarily based on trident and their only solo run foreign engagement in recent times was the Falklands.

Iwasfrozen

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

However, surely much if not most of the uks power derives from their "special relationship" with the US, their nuclear capacity is primarily based on trident and their only solo run foreign engagement in recent times was the Falklands.

But the very fact they were able to unilaterally project such power on the far side of the globe speaks of the UK's power. Not many other countries could do that.

RDM_83 again

Stealing part of Bidips comment on the page which seems to have a very valid criticism.
I also wonder about the ranking of the UK in terms of military reach as compared to France as France have shown an ability and a willingness to intervene in conflicts in the 21st century that have not had the USA involved.

Finally, I would like to finish with not so much a criticism as a question: your final ranking has made me raise my eyebrow on more than one occassion (though I admit that it’s hard to substantiate my reasons for this) so, looking for an explanation, I looked at your “full audit” to find that it was rather lacking rather than full. It assigns neat scores to each individual country based on such things as diplomatic influence and military power… but fails to explain why each country was assigned its score. Some of these are outright dubious (Australia has more cultural pull than Germany, Japan and China?) so it would be nice to include an explanatory note next time.

It seems that, in the end, your project was too ambitious. A lack of proper historical investigation means you’ve not proven that population size and GNI don’t matter, you’ve merely affirmed that matters in most cases, barring a large technology gap.

Jelle1880

Scofflaw wrote: »

Found this mildly interesting, and not very far from my own impression of the relative capabilities of countries on the world stage.



http://www.europeangeostrategy.org/2014/01/european-geostrategy-audit-major-powers-worlds-fifteen-most-powerful-countries-2014/

If the image doesn't show, the top 10 and their strengths are:

Country|Strength|Type
US|100.0|Superpower
UK|48.6|Global Power
France|39.0|Regional Power
China|37.6|Regional Power
Russia|30.3|Regional Power
Japan|20.0|Regional Power
Germany|19.0|Regional Power
Australia|17.6|Regional Power
Canada|1.7|Regional Power
India|15.7|Regional Power


That suggests that the UK is more powerful than China or Russia, which is probably now true - I think familiarity blinds us rather the capabilities of our nearest neighbour, and encourages a rather contemptuous narrative of a 'failing Britain' that thinks much better of itself than it deserves. But the 'strength' figures are as a % of US strength, and the idea of a UK that's pretty much half as strong as the US is almost disturbing.

This review, on the other hand, suggests that the reason the UK thinks of itself as a global power is because it is one, and possibly the most powerful after its major ally the US.

You'd need to read the whole article for the full reasoning behind the ranking, but the reason powers like China and Russia don't come out so well is that their numerically impressive military forces are often poorly equipped, led, and trained, and lack the power to project strength much beyond their borders.

Not sure other people would find the rankings as intuitively likely as I do, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Isn't this wrong ?

I've heard this before and, while no country is on par with the US when it comes to military power, neither of these two are poorly equipped or poorly led.

China gets a lot of it's missile and aircraft technology through Israel who sell them American technology.

Godge

Can't see a lot to argue with the first few rankings.

UK deserves to be up there, as has been pointed out, it can deploy itself half a world away and take back the Falklands and it is economically powerful. The influence of the City of London on the economic power issue as well as the pulling cultural power over the former colonies are also not to be underestimated.

However, as you go down the list, it would seem to me that some of the limitations of the methodology come to limit its effectiveness.

In particular, putting Canada and Australia ahead of the likes of Iran and Israel is counter-intuitive.

Iran, effectively, has economic resources in the form of oil, it has military resources too, undoubtedly chemical weapons and probably nuclear weapons. It has projected its power half a world away albeit through terrorism, rather than through open methods. Similar arguments can be made about Israel.

North Korea wouldn't make the list because of its need to periodically starve its population to maintain its military might.

Also I would have China closer to the UK with both themselves and Russia ahead of France.

WakeUp

I would imagine some of the data used to compile the list is really difficult to measure quantitatively as its constantly changing and has to be taken in context. By 2030 China will be the most powerful country on the planet if predicted trends go to plan. They are struggling to find new fresh water supplies and have to import a lot of their food though the figures and trends still suggest they will take over from the States in the next few decades.

Most of the list seems reasonable enough except for Australia not sure how they calculated their position would like to see how they came to that conclusion. I would also put China above Britain. Britain being an island has a distinct advantage in a conventional war. Though throw in a nuclear exchange with say Russia or China and Britain becomes extremely vulnerable & weak with its smaller landmass and dense population centers. Britain may well be able to project its maritime power across the world but what would happen if they sent their navy to take on the Chinese in Chinese waters? Once they arrived they would lose plenty of ships to sunburn missiles and submarines and such and then what. If they used their tridents the Chinese would launch their ICBMs bye bye Britain. USA,China,Britain top three for me China taking second on behalf of its economic might and future potential though lists like these are always relative and need to be taken in context doused in realism when talking of "power".

riffmongous

I am also surpised that France only got regional power status, considering how deeply involved France is with sub-saharan africa, how many military deployments have they had there in recent years? There are also french deployments in south america and the pacific http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_French_military

Edit: Ah I see they only missed out for definition reasons, by 1%.

Scofflaw

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Isn't this wrong ?

I've heard this before and, while no country is on par with the US when it comes to military power, neither of these two are poorly equipped or poorly led.

China gets a lot of it's missile and aircraft technology through Israel who sell them American technology.

I think it's the case that what makes China in particular impressive on paper is the sheer numerical size of its armed forces, but the majority of that apparent might is poorly equipped and led - also any case there's virtually no way for China to bring even their better forces, let alone their mass forces, any distance from their mainland. Any attempt to do so could easily be interdicted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

riffmongous

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it's the case that what makes China in particular impressive on paper is the sheer numerical size of its armed forces, but the majority of that apparent might is poorly equipped and led - also any case there's virtually no way for China to bring even their better forces, let alone their mass forces, any distance from their mainland. Any attempt to do so could easily be interdicted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think China's future power will come not from being able to project it's millitary power, which it can't, but projecting it's economic power particularly it's strength in rare earth metals and using it's millitary to defend it's economic position.

Iwasfrozen

riffmongous wrote: »

I think China's future power will come not from being able to project it's millitary power, which it can't, but projecting it's economic power particularly it's strength in rare earth metals and using it's millitary to defend it's economic position.

I don't think so, China has huge economic interests in Africa but no way of protecting them.

everdead.ie

So essentially going by the list the only other "power" in the same league as the US is the EU but obviously due to language barriers and no doubt a reluctance to work together there would be still be a US advantage?

Scofflaw

everdead.ie wrote: »

So essentially going by the list the only other "power" in the same league as the US is the EU but obviously due to language barriers and no doubt a reluctance to work together there would be still be a US advantage?

If we considered the EU as simply the sum of just its major nations, then what we get is the following table:

||Economic Strength|Military Reach|Cultural Pull|Diplomatic Influence|Total Power|Relative Power
1|United States|305.0%|380.0%|145.9%|213.9%|1044.8%|100.0%
2|United Kingdom|85.2%|142.4%|109.9%|170.6%|508.1%|48.6%
3|France|63.9%|126.1%|63.1%|154.0%|407.1%|39.0%
4|China|112.2%|88.7%|48.7%|143.0%|392.6%|37.6%
5|Russia|21.9%|117.7%|26.4%|151.0%|317.0%|30.3%
6|Japan|87.6%|30.5%|45.1%|45.9%|209.1%|20.0%
7|Germany|64.5%|13.2%|51.3%|69.7%|198.7%|19.0%
8|Australia|36.9%|11.5%|79.5%|56.1%|184.0%|17.6%
9|Canada|33.9%|8.0%|73.6%|58.5%|174.0%|16.7%
10|India|25.1%|43.0%|50.6%|45.2%|163.9%|15.7%
11|Italy|36.9%|20.3%|35.4%|48.6%|141.2%|13.5%
12|Spain|30.7%|18.5%|41.6%|48.9%|139.7%|13.4%
13|South Korea|19.1%|11.9%|38.3%|38.4%|107.7%|10.3%
14|Brazil|23.5%|9.8%|29.7%|42.1%|105.1%|10.1%
15|Turkey|8.9%|7.8%|28.2%|35.7%|80.6%|7.7%
16|EU|281.17%|320.28%|301.23%|489.94%|1392.62%|133.29%

If we reduce the military power to zero (not quite accurate, looking at the EU naval force off Somalia), then the overall EU score is 102.64%, which still leaves you with a 'soft' superpower roughly equivalent to the US. Again, I don't think that's inaccurate.

It also allows you to give some idea of the impact of UK withdrawal:

|Economic Strength|Military Reach|Cultural Pull|Diplomatic Influence|Total Power|Relative Power
EU|281.17%|320.28%|301.23%|489.94%|1392.62%|133.29%
EU w/o UK|195.99%|177.94%|191.42%|319.35%|884.70%|84.68%

Very big military impact, obviously, but even without that, the withdrawal of the UK would leave the EU at 67.65% of the US rather than 102.64%, which is a pretty big fall.

With a UK withdrawal, though, the military integration of the EU would likely speed up, and France would probably be willing to be more of a mainstay for the EU. I can't see the US and UK being happy with that situation compared to the current one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

However, surely much if not most of the uks power derives from their "special relationship" with the US, their nuclear capacity is primarily based on trident and their only solo run foreign engagement in recent times was the Falklands.

I didn’t fully appreciate the scale of Britain’s military operations before I moved here, but I can see now that I seriously underestimated what a massive part of peoples’ lives the armed forces are. I mean, in Ireland you’ll see the recruitment drives on British TV channels for the Royal Marines, for example, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. I’ve been surprised by the number of people I’ve met who have family and friends serving (of which they are often fiercely proud) and I was somewhat horrified by the dominance of military life in famous old market towns like Salisbury. Even walking around areas in Central London, like Holborn, for example, an area synonymous with law, you’ll see recruitment stations for the armed forces.

Then there’s the fact that the Ministry of Defence’s budget is absolutely colossal (about £37 billion).

Jonny7

It's all very relative

Measuring "power" is far from an exact science - but yah I would expect these rough results

Again, it's a user submitted site, I would presume someone with a German or French persuasion could produce a similar piece ranking those higher up the scale as they choose to interpret data

Gambas

Scofflaw wrote: »

If we reduce the military power to zero (not quite accurate, looking at the EU naval force off Somalia), then the overall EU score is 102.64%, which still leaves you with a 'soft' superpower roughly equivalent to the US. Again, I don't think that's inaccurate.

The problem is that in the EU there isn't the usual tight relationship between power and the force that can be applied in any one direction. Basically the EU's response to any issue is always less than the sum of its parts because of the various conflicting agenda.

djpbarry

Gambas wrote: »

Basically the EU's response to any issue is always less than the sum of its parts because of the various conflicting agenda.

There aren't various "conflicts", there's just the one: the UK versus everyone else.

Gambas

djpbarry wrote: »

There aren't various "conflicts", there's just the one: the UK versus everyone else.

That's internal EU politics rather than outward. The French are equally as stubborn/pushy where they have an angle, and pretty much the same goes for every country. Even we can be less than fully supportive depending on how the projection of EU power relates to anything of major importance to us, from beef exports to neutrality.

helimachoptor

At this point the uk has no carriers on helicopter transport ships, their attach choppers are generally lynx variants and I think a couple of squadrons on apaches, while yes they'd take back the Falklands even with that I think unless they have a land base near by their struggle to take back anything else.

They also now have to use US tankers to do in flight refuelling as their own as not in service.

Scofflaw

Gambas wrote: »

The problem is that in the EU there isn't the usual tight relationship between power and the force that can be applied in any one direction. Basically the EU's response to any issue is always less than the sum of its parts because of the various conflicting agenda.

Sure, although the extent and effect of such disunity varies. With respect to trade and economic weight, for example, that's largely expressed through the EU itself as negotiator, which gives you an outcome closer to potential. On foreign aid I would think the fact that the values being applied generally line up with each other would give something of the same effect.

Diplomatically, and in intelligence work, it's harder to say, although the extent of intel sharing between the Member States seems to be quite large.

Disunity is most obvious and important in the area of foreign policy hard and soft, but I think that when the response is unified (as generally has to be the case before anything happens, it being a veto area) most of the EU's soft power probably gets pointed at the problem.

One could say, of course, that internal differences in any democratic polity always act to reduce the correlation between potential force and applied force - if you have a vocal bunch of US Senators opposed to a US action, that action is likely to apply less force than it otherwise would.

cordially,
Scofflaw

0958

MY RANK
1.US
2.CHINA
3.RUSSIA
4.UK>GERMANY>FRINANCE
5.AUSTRLIA
6.JAPAN

Iwasfrozen

0958 wrote: »

MY RANK
1.US
2.CHINA
3.RUSSIA
4.UK>GERMANY>FRINANCE
5.AUSTRLIA
6.JAPAN

Why?

0958

Just personal feeling and the trend in 10yrs
Hard to tell exact evidence

Muahahaha

Some expressed surprise at Australia's position but I think you can't underestimate Australian influence across Asia and the Pacific. China is a major trading partner of theirs but also Japan, India and Malaysia too. Australian mining companies practically run the Indonesian mining industry and they have big influence there too. Apart from all that they are booming economically and they have the US and the UK as key allies as evidenced by their sharing of data on citizens and also the war games they conduct with them every couple of years. Australia is in the lucky position of having the ears of the Americans and British whilst still maintaining large influence across Asia and the Pacific. In geographic terms their reach is huge.

I was also wondering why Saudi Arabia doesn't appear on the list, it deems Spain to be more powerful than them, something I find difficult to believe given the amount of countries in the world, including our own, kiss Saudi ass.

Also what about the power to do something like shut down the Suez Canal ? Theoretically at least Egypt has the power to do something that would send the cost of goods and oil skyrocketing for millions of people, not that I could ever see the Egyptians doing it or anything but in theory they do have that power.

Black Swan

Although missing part of the necessary complexity in ranking nations, defense spending (2012) by nation is interesting. Defense spending by the United States was extraordinary at 645.7 billion USD at 4.12% GDP, while 2nd place China spends 102.4 billion USD, but only 1.24% GDP.

Manach

Echoing an earlier poster that Iran is not present. Given its economically strong oil industry, being the most powerful Shia country and the possession of a modern(ist) arsenal with a willingness to use them covertly to support allied elements in neighbouring countries.

Iwasfrozen

0958 wrote: »

Just personal feeling and the trend in 10yrs
Hard to tell exact evidence

I'd go more towards the US, Japan, the UK and Turkey as the main players in the next ten years. China's a red herring imo they'll never be a super power, they have too many people living in sub Saharan poverty and two very big bubbles (property and pensions) about to blow in their face.

BuilderPlumber

I'd say the main world powers are: USA, UK, France/Germany/EU, China, Russia.
After that you have powerful regional countries: Australia, Japan, Israel, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia. Most backed by a superpower.
Then, you have the wannabe powers that are really poor countries pretending to be otherwise (the ones only George W Bush types considered threats): Saddam's Iraq, Ahmadinejad's Iran and of course the only survivor of the set, North Korea. Such entities were poor, could be beaten within a month by a superpower, and had gigantic egos based on nothing. 2014 Iran and Iraq have more realistic views but a moderate, mature and positively involved Iran (Hassan Rouhani wants to take it this direction) definitely has potential to be a future superpower or at least a very major client state (see below).
Then, you have the client states: South Korea, United Arab Emirates, etc. All propped up to surround weak enemies of superpowers (usually of the US) to make sure they remain weak.

Cookie_Monster

Canada is the surprising one for me; no one ever suspects Canada.

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it's the case that what makes China in particular impressive on paper is the sheer numerical size of its armed forces, but the majority of that apparent might is poorly equipped and led - also any case there's virtually no way for China to bring even their better forces, let alone their mass forces, any distance from their mainland. Any attempt to do so could easily be interdicted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Remember, the Soviets were very poorly equipped and trained compared to the Nazi forces. To the point of having combat losses of just over 5:1 in 1943 (operation losses of 3:1) when they were turning the war in their favour!!. Having more "stuff" than the other guy can win you a war so long as you don't care about how big the sacrifice is.

Not that it matters as both have nukes so land forces are pretty irrelevant.

nesf

Manach wrote: »

Echoing an earlier poster that Iran is not present. Given its economically strong oil industry, being the most powerful Shia country and the possession of a modern(ist) arsenal with a willingness to use them covertly to support allied elements in neighbouring countries.

Much of Iran's problem is that they'd get wiped out very fast in a large scale war with most of the countries on that list mainly because you couldn't fight just one country on that list, you'd be fighting them and many of their friends who are also on that list whilst Iran lacks any big ally to bring as whilst Russia and to a lesser extent China would work against any war with Iran they'd be unlikely to actually go to war with a major power over it.

BuilderPlumber

nesf wrote: »

Much of Iran's problem is that they'd get wiped out very fast in a large scale war with most of the countries on that list mainly because you couldn't fight just one country on that list, you'd be fighting them and many of their friends who are also on that list whilst Iran lacks any big ally to bring as whilst Russia and to a lesser extent China would work against any war with Iran they'd be unlikely to actually go to war with a major power over it.

That is true. Iran knows this and what does Iran really want? Apart from the manic depressive, paranoid elements that are on the wane since Hassan Rouhani came to power, what Iran really wants is to replace Saudi Arabia as the key power in the region. Yes, that means Iran wants to be a big US ally but still remains friends with China and Russia, and still remain independent.

Current supreme leader/Shah Ali Khamenei is often referred to in the propaganda press as a hardline, anti-Western leader. However, I doubt if he would have survived long in power in that role. He is cleverer than that and decided to side against the anti-West elements in 2013 because he knew they were driving Iran into a spiral of poverty and isolation that would spell an end to the current system and years of chaos. Khamenei is old enough to have witnessed the 1978-1982 chaotic period and indeed was the first president of Iran to actually last 2 terms without getting impeached or assassinated. Khamenei does not want to return to 1978-82 under any circumstances whereas Ahmadinejad (whose aim was for the military to overthrow Khamenei in the end) did.

Religiously, Iran also wants to move away from the negative 'Taliban voodoo' that the West often depicts Islam as. Any Islamic scholar (which most of Iran's leaders are) know that Islam was until very recently a moderate, tolerant, enlightened force very much at odds with medieval and renaissance era Christianity (Moorish Spain v Spanish Inquisition). Moderate Islam thrived in Iran for centuries. The current leadership of Iran have close relations with the Vatican and moderate Pope Francis is an important role model for those wanting to reform Islam and bring Islam back to its more moderate past. Taliban like movements came out of war and out of the depressive makeups of certain revolutionary leaders much moreso than out of the Koran. Over the top fanaticism has ruined many countries and Iran sees that its future prosperity lies in a much more pragmatic policy. It also is one of the few Middle Eastern countries that is still safe and peaceful and most of Iran's government and people want it to stay like this and prosper. It really is the only country in the region to rival the Saudis as the rest are all weak, at war, or too small. And both Rouhani and even Khamenei know this and want to take advantage of this opportunity.

Scofflaw

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

That is true. Iran knows this and what does Iran really want? Apart from the manic depressive, paranoid elements that are on the wane since Hassan Rouhani came to power, what Iran really wants is to replace Saudi Arabia as the key power in the region. Yes, that means Iran wants to be a big US ally but still remains friends with China and Russia, and still remain independent.

Current supreme leader/Shah Ali Khamenei is often referred to in the propaganda press as a hardline, anti-Western leader. However, I doubt if he would have survived long in power in that role. He is cleverer than that and decided to side against the anti-West elements in 2013 because he knew they were driving Iran into a spiral of poverty and isolation that would spell an end to the current system and years of chaos. Khamenei is old enough to have witnessed the 1978-1982 chaotic period and indeed was the first president of Iran to actually last 2 terms without getting impeached or assassinated. Khamenei does not want to return to 1978-82 under any circumstances whereas Ahmadinejad (whose aim was for the military to overthrow Khamenei in the end) did.

Religiously, Iran also wants to move away from the negative 'Taliban voodoo' that the West often depicts Islam as. Any Islamic scholar (which most of Iran's leaders are) know that Islam was until very recently a moderate, tolerant, enlightened force very much at odds with medieval and renaissance era Christianity (Moorish Spain v Spanish Inquisition). Moderate Islam thrived in Iran for centuries. The current leadership of Iran have close relations with the Vatican and moderate Pope Francis is an important role model for those wanting to reform Islam and bring Islam back to its more moderate past. Taliban like movements came out of war and out of the depressive makeups of certain revolutionary leaders much moreso than out of the Koran. Over the top fanaticism has ruined many countries and Iran sees that its future prosperity lies in a much more pragmatic policy. It also is one of the few Middle Eastern countries that is still safe and peaceful and most of Iran's government and people want it to stay like this and prosper. It really is the only country in the region to rival the Saudis as the rest are all weak, at war, or too small. And both Rouhani and even Khamenei know this and want to take advantage of this opportunity.

In another of those "what you see is what you don't get" twists geopolitics is so riddled with, Iran, with its moderate form of Islam, is on the 'axis of evil' list, while Saudi, with its ultra-conservative and militant Wahhabism, is a US ally, even though, of the two, Al Qaeda is associated with the latter, and the 9/11 guys were primarily Saudis, not Iranians. The increased radicalisation of Western Muslims is also associated with the madrassas the Saudis fund with their oil wealth rather than any Iranian endeavour.

Article in the Tehran Times:

Wahhabism, a great threat to Islamic civilization

For over 250 years, Wahhabism has posed a great threat to Islamic society. The ultra-conservative movement is allegedly based on the teachings of the Sunni jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and the ideology was later revised by the Salafists.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/component/content/article/52-guests/108546-wahhabism-a-great-threat-to-islamic-civilization

Makes you wonder, really. Geostrategy makes for strange bedfellows, and even stranger politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

WakeUp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'd go more towards the US, Japan, the UK and Turkey as the main players in the next ten years. China's a red herring imo they'll never be a super power, they have too many people living in sub Saharan poverty and two very big bubbles (property and pensions) about to blow in their face.

The Chinese do have issues that need sorting out pensions is a big one though lack of arable land/ fresh water probably tops the list but I still think China will eventually become a superpower my question would be what kind of superpower will they be when this happens? US foreign policy is pivoting from the middle east to Asia I think Obama announced that when he was in Sydney a little while back if I remember correctly.

The sole purpose being to check Chinese blue water navy ambitions in the pacific and other attempts by China to project power outside of its borders. So we know the US are concerned and are acting accordingly. We can also say that the US have decided on a policy of military containment which isnt surprising its how they roll. Only need to look at the tensions surrounding the south China sea to see that the Chinese mean business. The Japanese are extremely concerned with Chinas growth and future expansion plans which they have. I think the seeds are being sown for a future collision between the US and China over regional hegemony of the Asian pacific which will draw in the likes of Japan and the Philippines and other US allies. China may well rise to the top as a result of a military confrontation or threat of thereof.

Like any empires of the past as Chinese power grows that power is inevitably projected to encompass immediate neighbours and over time geographical regions perhaps even continents. Chinas holy grail is control of the pacific basin and all that entails. To achieve dominance they must first displace the US this has years to run but I think we are seeing the begining of it now. The Chinese are coming is a question of when I believe.

gallag

WakeUp wrote: »

I would imagine some of the data used to compile the list is really difficult to measure quantitatively as its constantly changing and has to be taken in context. By 2030 China will be the most powerful country on the planet if predicted trends go to plan. They are struggling to find new fresh water supplies and have to import a lot of their food though the figures and trends still suggest they will take over from the States in the next few decades.

Most of the list seems reasonable enough except for Australia not sure how they calculated their position would like to see how they came to that conclusion. I would also put China above Britain. Britain being an island has a distinct advantage in a conventional war. Though throw in a nuclear exchange with say Russia or China and Britain becomes extremely vulnerable & weak with its smaller landmass and dense population centers. Britain may well be able to project its maritime power across the world but what would happen if they sent their navy to take on the Chinese in Chinese waters? Once they arrived they would lose plenty of ships to sunburn missiles and submarines and such and then what. If they used their tridents the Chinese would launch their ICBMs bye bye Britain. USA,China,Britain top three for me China taking second on behalf of its economic might and future potential though lists like these are always relative and need to be taken in context doused in realism when talking of "power".

The U.K is the No1 nuclear power in the world, also in first place are the U.S.A, Russia, China and France. There is no second place, mutually assured destruction (MAD). There is no difference between having 100 nukes and 1 million, the USA could not destroy Russia without Russia returning the favour and the same applies to all nuclear powers.

Your point about the UK being a smaller landmass and ergo easier to destroy is indeed correct but by the time someone has decided to destroy the UK the trident nuclear fleet living dark around the world would come close to the surface and completely wipe out any country or countries they choose, nothing can stop them.

There will be no winners in a nuclear exchange, everyone in the countries that launch nukes will die as a result, even massive countries would be devastated with a small amount of bombs, the ground would be radiated forcing the survivors to drink, eat and breath radiated material, no organised government/health care etc the lucky would be vaporised in the initial wave.

As to the list, it may seem strange to see the UK second but several years ago the UK had a strategic review, in 3-4 years they will have completed this plan resulting in the most advanced navel task force in the world, not the biggest, but a task force that could project power anywhere in the world and be pretty much invincible.

2x Queen Elizabeth carrier's. Each capable of carrying 40+ next gen F35's and apache helicopters.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Future-Ships/Queen-Elizabeth-Class.

---

6 type 45 destroyers. Simply the most advanced ships on the water, each capable of shooting down something as small as a cricket ball travelling three times the speed of sound. During war games the Americans had to ask for the Sampson radar to be deactivated as it was To advanced.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Destroyers/Type-45-Destroyers

---

7 Astute class nuclear submarines, again the most advanced subs in the world.

Astute will never need refuelling. Her sonar can track ships 3,000 miles (4,830km) away and her missiles have a target range of 1,200 miles (1,930km) - with accuracy measured in metres.

Not only that, Naval Command in Britain can reprogramme the missiles in mid-flight and aim for another target, even if the submarine is thousands of miles away.

The Astute class has stowage for 38 weapons and would typically carry both Spearfish heavy torpedoes and Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles, the latter costing £870,000 each.[39] The Tomahawk missiles are capable of hitting a target to within a few metres within a range of 1,240 miles[40](2,000 km). The Astute class will also be able to fire the new "tactical Tomahawk" currently under development. The Astute Combat Management System is an evolved version of the Submarine Command System used on other classes of British submarine. The system receives data from the boat's sensors and displays real time imagery on all command consoles. The submarines also haveAtlas Hydrographic DESO 25 high-precision echosounders, two CM010 non-hull-penetratingoptronic masts—in place of conventionalperiscopes—which carry thermal imaging and low-light TV and colour CCD TV sensors.[41] The class also mounts a Raytheon Successor IFF system.

For detecting enemy ships and submarines theAstute class are equipped with the sophisticatedThales Underwater Systems Sonar 2076, an integrated passive/active search and attack sonarsuite with bow, intercept, flank and towed arrays. BAE claims that the 2076 represents a "step change" over previous sonars and is the world's most advanced and effective sonar system.[42]

In 2012, during simulated battles with the United States Navy's latest Virginia-class submarine (theUSS New Mexico), it was reported that the Americans were "taken aback" by Astute's capabilities. Royal Navy Commander Ian Breckenridge was quoted saying: “Our sonar is fantastic and I have never before experienced holding a submarine at the range we were holding USS New Mexico. The Americans were utterly taken aback, blown away with what they were seeing.”

---

4 vanguard class nuclear ballistic submarines. Deployed around the world, never need to refuel, strengthened bridges to punch trough ice, they can sit in the north pole and rise to launch over 100 nuclear war heads. It says on the royal Navy's site " submarines are the UK's ultimate shield and sword, as the Navy's 'bombers' carry the nation’s strategic nuclear deterrent in the shape of Trident nuclear missiles. One of these four big submarines is always on patrol somewhere in the world's oceans, a round-the-clock insurance policy for the country."

Scofflaw

We may have crossed the line there between geostrategic considerations and military porn...

cordially,
Scofflaw

gallag

Scofflaw wrote: »

We may have crossed the line there between geostrategic considerations and military porn...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is discussing the UK's capabilities not relevant to discussing it's seemingly high place on this list? Could you expand on your point anymore or should it just be taken as a sarcastic swipe?

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

Is discussing the UK's capabilities not relevant to discussing it's seemingly high place on this list? Could you expand on your point anymore or should it just be taken as a sarcastic swipe?

It wasn't intended as sarcastic, but, sure, it can be expanded. The details of UK naval power you're pasted aren't really all that relevant unless you're prepared to similarly paste details for each and every other country in the list*, because the point here is relative geostrategic power (of which naval power is just one element). I suspect that a recitation of French, US or Russian naval forces would be equally excitingly military, and probably a good deal longer too.

As such, the recitation of just how impressive the new RN ships are (never mind how few they are) just looks like Union Jack willy-waving.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*NB. don't do this

gallag

Scofflaw wrote: »

It wasn't intended as sarcastic, but, sure, it can be expanded. The details of UK naval power you're pasted aren't really all that relevant unless you're prepared to similarly paste details for each and every other country in the list*, because the point here is relative geostrategic power (of which naval power is just one element). I suspect that a recitation of French, US or Russian naval forces would be equally excitingly military, and probably a good deal longer too.

As such, the recitation of just how impressive the new RN ships are (never mind how few they are) just looks like Union Jack willy-waving.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*NB. don't do this

At this point you can drop the cordially, what an ignorant post, I was responding to the post I quoted, my post was completely relevant to discussing the UK's seemingly high place on that list, you have an obvious agenda to take a completely on topic post and lower it to "union jack willy waving" .

The U.K is a few years away from completing the modernisation of their fleet and it is using some ground breaking and leading edge equipment, you are wrong that every other country is also doing this.

I find your post needlessly confrontational and not acceptable for a mod.

nesf

gallag wrote: »

At this point you can drop the cordially, what an ignorant post, I was responding to the post I quoted, my post was completely relevant to discussing the UK's seemingly high place on that list, you have an obvious agenda to take a completely on topic post and lower it to "union jack willy waving" .

The U.K is a few years away from completing the modernisation of their fleet and it is using some ground breaking and leading edge equipment, you are wrong that every other country is also doing this.

I find your post needlessly confrontational and not acceptable for a mod.

The UK is unusually miliarised compared to most countries, the exceptions are also on that list, e.g. Germany and France. I don't see the need to bang the drum too much anyone with any understanding of modern warfare and national armies would rank the British along the other European countries I mentioned near the top of any list. Where they would get annhilated would be in a WWII style land war with someone like Russia or China but since everyone worth talking about military wise either has nukes or has a very close alliiance to someone with nukes this is irrelevant to the discussion. We're not going to be seeing any large scale conventional warfare between major powers any time soon.

Regardless, it's pretty pointless to pick any one country out of the list on geostrategic considerations. The UK's strength is not just her armies and fleets but her alliances. Considering a war with the UK would be a war with the UK, the EU, the US, Canada and others it doesn't even make much sense to talk about just the UK in a war, you couldn't attack it without starting World War III and then we're back to nukes again.

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

At this point you can drop the cordially, what an ignorant post, I was responding to the post I quoted, my post was completely relevant to discussing the UK's seemingly high place on that list, you have an obvious agenda to take a completely on topic post and lower it to "union jack willy waving" .

The U.K is a few years away from completing the modernisation of their fleet and it is using some ground breaking and leading edge equipment, you are wrong that every other country is also doing this.

I find your post needlessly confrontational and not acceptable for a mod.

Shrug. A pasted detailed recitation of the UK's strength in a single category of the list isn't all that useful - but there wasn't ever any plan to stop you, so you can unbunch and move on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gallag

nesf wrote: »

The UK is unusually miliarised compared to most countries, the exceptions are also on that list, e.g. Germany and France. I don't see the need to bang the drum too much anyone with any understanding of modern warfare and national armies would rank the British along the other European countries I mentioned near the top of any list. Where they would get annhilated would be in a WWII style land war with someone like Russia or China but since everyone worth talking about military wise either has nukes or has a very close alliiance to someone with nukes this is irrelevant to the discussion. We're not going to be seeing any large scale conventional warfare between major powers any time soon.

Regardless, it's pretty pointless to pick any one country out of the list on geostrategic considerations. The UK's strength is not just her armies and fleets but her alliances. Considering a war with the UK would be a war with the UK, the EU, the US, Canada and others it doesn't even make much sense to talk about just the UK in a war, you couldn't attack it without starting World War III and then we're back to nukes again.

Completely agree with all your points, a lot of people would be surprised that the U.K was no2 on that list and since the U.K was near completing an unprecedented overhaul and putting together the most advanced navel task force in the world I thought it deserved mention, don't know why it caused upset.

gallag

Scofflaw wrote: »

Shrug. A pasted detailed recitation of the UK's strength in a single category of the list isn't all that useful - but there wasn't ever any plan to stop you, so you can unbunch and move on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It wasn't all "pasted" you are usually the one shouting for citation so I was posting references to back up my claim that the UK will have the most technologically advanced task force in the world. You say this was not useful but for people who couldn't understand why the UK were two on that list it might have been interesting, again you have to reduce your post to childish insults, the "unbunch" comment really should be beneath you.

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

Completely agree with all your points, a lot of people would be surprised that the U.K was no2 on that list and since the U.K was near completing an unprecedented overhaul and putting together the most advanced navel task force in the world I thought it deserved mention, don't know why it caused upset.

I'm not sure either, since my original comment was extremely mild and also intended flippantly. I'm not even arguing that the UK is anything other than a major military power (on the contrary, I always think people hugely underestimate it) - I just don't think a detailed list of UK naval mil-tech tells you anything useful about its comparative position without a similar review of every other country in the list, and as such, it really does seem like flag-waving (if you prefer that term).

On the other hand, if the thread were to turn into a Jane's trading card game, that would be an issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

gallag wrote: »

Completely agree with all your points, a lot of people would be surprised that the U.K was no2 on that list and since the U.K was near completing an unprecedented overhaul and putting together the most advanced navel task force in the world I thought it deserved mention, don't know why it caused upset.

I think people get confused because they're still thinking of WWII and large infantry armies supported by tanks fighting inch by inch across continents. Wars involving major powers aren't fought like this anymore. In WWII terms the British aren't a big military power, most of the bigger countries would just outlast them in the field and people still think of armies in this way when now, eh, a well placed precision munition does the job that used to take 2 months and 50,000 men.

WakeUp

gallag wrote: »

The U.K is the No1 nuclear power in the world, also in first place are the U.S.A, Russia, China and France. There is no second place, mutually assured destruction (MAD). There is no difference between having 100 nukes and 1 million, the USA could not destroy Russia without Russia returning the favour and the same applies to all nuclear powers.

Your point about the UK being a smaller landmass and ergo easier to destroy is indeed correct but by the time someone has decided to destroy the UK the trident nuclear fleet living dark around the world would come close to the surface and completely wipe out any country or countries they choose, nothing can stop them.

There will be no winners in a nuclear exchange, everyone in the countries that launch nukes will die as a result, even massive countries would be devastated with a small amount of bombs, the ground would be radiated forcing the survivors to drink, eat and breath radiated material, no organised government/health care etc the lucky would be vaporised in the initial wave.

As to the list, it may seem strange to see the UK second but several years ago the UK had a strategic review, in 3-4 years they will have completed this plan resulting in the most advanced navel task force in the world, not the biggest, but a task force that could project power anywhere in the world and be pretty much invincible.

2x Queen Elizabeth carrier's. Each capable of carrying 40+ next gen F35's and apache helicopters.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Future-Ships/Queen-Elizabeth-Class.

---

6 type 45 destroyers. Simply the most advanced ships on the water, each capable of shooting down something as small as a cricket ball travelling three times the speed of sound. During war games the Americans had to ask for the Sampson radar to be deactivated as it was To advanced.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Destroyers/Type-45-Destroyers

---

7 Astute class nuclear submarines, again the most advanced subs in the world.

Astute will never need refuelling. Her sonar can track ships 3,000 miles (4,830km) away and her missiles have a target range of 1,200 miles (1,930km) - with accuracy measured in metres.

Not only that, Naval Command in Britain can reprogramme the missiles in mid-flight and aim for another target, even if the submarine is thousands of miles away.

The Astute class has stowage for 38 weapons and would typically carry both Spearfish heavy torpedoes and Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles, the latter costing £870,000 each.[39] The Tomahawk missiles are capable of hitting a target to within a few metres within a range of 1,240 miles[40](2,000 km). The Astute class will also be able to fire the new "tactical Tomahawk" currently under development. The Astute Combat Management System is an evolved version of the Submarine Command System used on other classes of British submarine. The system receives data from the boat's sensors and displays real time imagery on all command consoles. The submarines also haveAtlas Hydrographic DESO 25 high-precision echosounders, two CM010 non-hull-penetratingoptronic masts—in place of conventionalperiscopes—which carry thermal imaging and low-light TV and colour CCD TV sensors.[41] The class also mounts a Raytheon Successor IFF system.

For detecting enemy ships and submarines theAstute class are equipped with the sophisticatedThales Underwater Systems Sonar 2076, an integrated passive/active search and attack sonarsuite with bow, intercept, flank and towed arrays. BAE claims that the 2076 represents a "step change" over previous sonars and is the world's most advanced and effective sonar system.[42]

In 2012, during simulated battles with the United States Navy's latest Virginia-class submarine (theUSS New Mexico), it was reported that the Americans were "taken aback" by Astute's capabilities. Royal Navy Commander Ian Breckenridge was quoted saying: “Our sonar is fantastic and I have never before experienced holding a submarine at the range we were holding USS New Mexico. The Americans were utterly taken aback, blown away with what they were seeing.”

---

4 vanguard class nuclear ballistic submarines. Deployed around the world, never need to refuel, strengthened bridges to punch trough ice, they can sit in the north pole and rise to launch over 100 nuclear war heads. It says on the royal Navy's site " submarines are the UK's ultimate shield and sword, as the Navy's 'bombers' carry the nation’s strategic nuclear deterrent in the shape of Trident nuclear missiles. One of these four big submarines is always on patrol somewhere in the world's oceans, a round-the-clock insurance policy for the country."

Yep, agree with your comments about nuclear weapons there are no winners everyone loses though militarily , nukes excluded , Britain is no threat to China and the only way they could hope to dominate China in a fight would be to nuke them which would be the end of Britain. I read a paper well some of it to cut a long story short it was a study on the implications of a Russian first strike on the US involving between 300 and 350 thermonuclear weapons. The Russians have the best missile tech in the world in my opinion, the likes of their S400 (non-nuclear) system is at least 15 years ahead of everything else it has no equal. They came to the conclusion that within the first half an hour 95 million people would die. Within two years half of the remaining population would also be dead and that is without population centers being direct first targets as they would go after military infrastructure first. Britain is roughly the same size as the state of Oregon and even a minimal nuclear strike would cripple and destroy them whereas they would need to launch everything they have to return the favour so to speak.

With regard to the current/future British navy and the US and other European navies they are yet to be truly tested and until then I will reserve judgement on their actual capability in a proper fight. During the Falklands war Argentina possessed 5 French made exocet anti-ship missiles. All five were fired, 2 missed 3 hit their targets two ships were sunk one of them a destroyer and one ship was damaged and taken out of action. Had Argentina more of these missiles they could have in theory sank the entire British fleet and history may well be different.

Fast forward to today and we have the sunburn missile which in my opinion is the most lethal missile in existance today the Americans call them carrier killers. Russia, China and Iran have thousands of them. This missile is the reason why the US and their allies are yet to attack Iran and its why the Iranians are so brazen about their capabilities. Hezbollah took an Israeli ship out of action in 2006 using a sunburn they only fired one and it hit its target. Israel was at war at the time though they claim the ship had its advanced radars switched "off" when hit. Yeah right. The ships defences were defeated. The US and British surface fleets are yet to be truly tested by a worthwhile opponent and in the sunburn they have more than met their match I certainly would not want to be anywhere near a ship being blitzed by these badboys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbPFEpJSRT8

gallag

WakeUp wrote: »

Yep, agree with your comments about nuclear weapons there are no winners everyone loses though militarily , nukes excluded , Britain is no threat to China and the only way they could hope to dominate China in a fight would be to nuke them which would be the end of Britain. I read a paper well some of it to cut a long story short it was a study on the implications of a Russian first strike on the US involving between 300 and 350 thermonuclear weapons. The Russians have the best missile tech in the world in my opinion, the likes of their S400 (non-nuclear) system is at least 15 years ahead of everything else it has no equal. They came to the conclusion that within the first half an hour 95 million people would die. Within two years half of the remaining population would also be dead and that is without population centers being direct first targets as they would go after military infrastructure first. Britain is roughly the same size as the state of Oregon and even a minimal nuclear strike would cripple and destroy them whereas they would need to launch everything they have to return the favour so to speak.

With regard to the current/future British navy and the US and other European navies they are yet to be truly tested and until then I will reserve judgement on their actual capability in a proper fight. During the Falklands war Argentina possessed 5 French made exocet anti-ship missiles. All five were fired, 2 missed 3 hit their targets two ships were sunk one of them a destroyer and one ship was damaged and taken out of action. Had Argentina more of these missiles they could have in theory sank the entire British fleet and history may well be different.

Fast forward to today and we have the sunburn missile which in my opinion is the most lethal missile in existance today the Americans call them carrier killers. Russia, China and Iran have thousands of them. This missile is the reason why the US and their allies are yet to attack Iran and its why the Iranians are so brazen about their capabilities. Hezbollah took an Israeli ship out of action in 2006 using a sunburn they only fired one and it hit its target. Israel was at war at the time though they claim the ship had its advanced radars switched "off" when hit. Yeah right. The ships defences were defeated. The US and British surface fleets are yet to be truly tested by a worthwhile opponent and in the sunburn they have more than met their match I certainly would not want to be anywhere near a ship being blitzed by these badboys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbPFEpJSRT8

Agree, but I think that is why the UK's strategic review went smart, the type 45 is a game changer in missile defence, a carrier protected by 2-3 of these would be very hard to penetrate, they can destroy a cricket ball sized target travelling at 3 times the speed of sound 70 miles away. That's why I believe a task force comprising of 2 Queen Elizabeth carrier's with 100 F35's , 6 type 45 destroyers and a few Astute class nuclear submarines would be to much for Russia or China to deal with, but I also agree what's the point? The U.K may be able to project power better than the Russians or Chinese and have a better blue water navy but they would never be able to actually invade those countries without getting their ass whooped, and then if it gets to the point of needing type 45's shooting down Russian or Chinese missiles it's probably going to escalate to nukes and we would all be screwed anyway.

I suppose a lot of this equipment is pointless, what real threats are there to the U.K? The Falklands? Spain taking Gibraltar? I would imagine one type45 of the Falklands would do, probably just the UK trying to remain important to America? Personally I would ditch most of the carriers, destroyers etc and increase the trident nuclear fleet and just have a foreign policy of leave us alone and we will leave you alone!

nesf

gallag wrote: »

Agree, but I think that is why the UK's strategic review went smart, the type 45 is a game changer in missile defence, a carrier protected by 2-3 of these would be very hard to penetrate, they can destroy a cricket ball sized target travelling at 3 times the speed of sound 70 miles away. That's why I believe a task force comprising of 2 Queen Elizabeth carrier's with 100 F35's , 6 type 45 destroyers and a few Astute class nuclear submarines would be to much for Russia or China to deal with, but I also agree what's the point? The U.K may be able to project power better than the Russians or Chinese and have a better blue water navy but they would never be able to actually invade those countries without getting their ass whooped, and then if it gets to the point of needing type 45's shooting down Russian or Chinese missiles it's probably going to escalate to nukes and we would all be screwed anyway.

I suppose a lot of this equipment is pointless, what real threats are there to the U.K? The Falklands? Spain taking Gibraltar? I would imagine one type45 of the Falklands would do, probably just the UK trying to remain important to America? Personally I would ditch most of the carriers, destroyers etc and increase the trident nuclear fleet and just have a foreign policy of leave us alone and we will leave you alone!

The equipment on both sides isn't there because they expect a war with one of the other major power blocs soon, it's there a) to make it obvious that any conventional war with them will be extremely costly and b) to allow them to operate in smaller war theaters either through arming puppets or direct action. The British aren't worried about Soviet fired Sunburns, they're more worried about Soviet made Sunburns. That said, the lack of massive investment in these kinds of missiles by pretty much everybody does underlie just how good anti-missile defense has gotten since the Cold War. We're almost approaching a WWI type situation where defensive technologies have made almost everyone want to be the defender tactically.


One problem perhaps with the analysis that was done is that the US and UK naturally can project their power more than Russia and China simply because Russia and China protect their interests in ways other than sending troops (excluding land neighbours).

Eggy Baby!

Not surprised at all that Russia and China are 3rd and 4th on the list. In a list of pure military capability, it would be USA - China/Russia - UK. I think its also amazing how Russia has come so far up the list....ten or fifteen years ago it wouldn't even have been in the top 10.

Secondly, its impossible to measure power, particularly cultural power. Military power is much easier to measure because you can count tanks, troops, jets, ships etc. Even then, why does cultural power factor into this index? Diplomatic power essentially includes cultural power... and it is to my understanding that the Americans didn't invade Iraq with hamburgers and apple pie, nor did the Russian assert the autonomy of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by bombarding the Georgians with balalaikas and matryoshka dolls.

2x Queen Elizabeth carrier's. Each capable of carrying 40+ next gen F35's and apache helicopters.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Flee...lizabeth-Class.

---

6 type 45 destroyers. Simply the most advanced ships on the water, each capable of shooting down something as small as a cricket ball travelling three times the speed of sound. During war games the Americans had to ask for the Sampson radar to be deactivated as it was To advanced.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Flee...-45-Destroyers

---

Lastly, Scofflaw is right, your post is Union Jack willy waving. Reminds me of that silly show "Future Weapons" hosted by Generic Ex-Navy SEAL No. 467 where they said "Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide" to describe everything.

Plus, who would want to fire a cricket ball at a ship?

(And the F35 is a white elephant project. The whole thing has been plagued by overruns and ballooning development costs, similar to the F22. The only reason these projects have been commissioned is because the American government and the defense industries are involving in a massive trillion dollar circlejerk.)

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

One problem perhaps with the analysis that was done is that the US and UK naturally can project their power more than Russia and China simply because Russia and China protect their interests in ways other than sending troops (excluding land neighbours).

That would be the problem with a purely military analysis, but the analysis wasn't purely military, and the US and UK also protect their interests in such ways.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

That would be the problem with a purely military analysis, but the analysis wasn't purely military, and the US and UK also protect their interests in such ways.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, but it's far easier to count ships than influence unless you've access to a super power's intelligence logs for the evening.

My point was more that the way the scoring was split inflates the US and UK scores somewhat while diminishing those of China and Russia compared to how much actual violence they can create far from their borders in their interests.