Global Firepower’s 2019 Military Strength Ranking

[waz]

that is incorrect. experience doesn't make perfect, experience makes permanent. some bad practices i.e. fighting low intensity wars all the time and assuming the enemy won't hit back actually make your military worse than no experience and just assuming the worst.

It is vitally important, you learn from conflicts, you implement changes and you become a better fighting machine. Haven't you heard the famous Roman army saying that their exercises are unbloody battles, and their battles bloody exercises.....
I also wasn't referring to low intensity wars either, it's full scale conflicts with combined arms that I'm writing about.

 

[Kailash Kumar]

@khansaheeb

Probably outsourced to some little Indian boy in New Delhi who wrote this report.
After the drumming the Indians got from Pakistan and the drumming the Afghans have given the the US , both countries should be in the top 5.

Pakistan should rank higher. I agree.
But when you say that the Afghans gave the U.S. a 'drumming' then that only applies to the Taliban.
I do not think that they researched the military strength of the Taliban.
When they talk about Afghanistan, they mean the Afghan National Army.
And they are ranked at 74 (of 137 places).
I think that is correct.


@Indus Pakistan

Nonsense. What heading do nuclear missiles come under? Flower strength?

I think this index focuses more on conventional military strength.


@Riz

Egypt have 2 aircraft carriers??

Egypt actually has two helicopter carriers.
Helicopter carriers are included alongside traditional fleet carriers in Global Firepower’s ranking.


@volatile

Numbers for Pakistan are incorrect

You are correct.
I think they used old numbers.


@waz

Many of those nations have never fought an armed conflict in their modern history. That list is terrible.
Ever head of the boxer who never spared and became champion? Me neither, he doesn't exist.
Experience is perhaps the factor that trumps everything on there e.g. how many x amount of tanks you have.

I think this list is more about current 'peacetime' conventional military strength.
Another list could be made, a list which is more about 'wartime' military strength.
This list could take in account all battles / wars that a country's military has fought (and won or lost) since, let's say, WWII and also the experience that they have gained from fighting, as you say.
This list of 'wartime military strength' will be different than that of 'peacetime military strength'.
Pakistan would rank higher than they do now.
But I also think that, for example, the U.K. would rank higher than Japan etc.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I think this index focuses more on conventional military strength.

Which effectively castrates it's purpose. If your assessing the fighting ability of a guy, you size his muscles, reflexes, boxing skills but ignore that he has a gun on his person. Would that assessment be any good?

And ask the Japanese whether nukes are flowers or a lethal military weapon?

If your assessing the fighting ability of a guy, you size his muscles, reflexes, boxing skills but ignore that he has a gun on his person. Would that assessment be any good?

You have a fight with him and he ends up shooting you. Would that assessment you made be any good?

 

[Furious]

Probably outsourced to some little Indian boy in New Delhi who wrote this report.
After the drumming the Indians got from Pakistan and the drumming the Afghans have given the the US , both countries should be in the top 5.

Lol US lost in vietnam and in afghanistan and getting their *** kicked both by Iran and the Houthis. Tell me where USA should be then ?

 

[Buddhistforlife]

These are the 25 most powerful militaries in the world in 2019

Ellen Ioanes

27 Sep 2019

Head-to-head comparisons of military strength are hard to come by.

Global Firepower’s 2019 Military Strength Ranking tries to fill that void by drawing on more than 55 factors to assign a Power Index score to 137 countries – adding Moldova this year. (Global Firepower appears to have changed its methodology from that of previous lists the 2019, yielding different index numbers.)

The ranking assesses the diversity of each country’s weapons and pays particular attention to their available manpower. Geography, logistical capacity, available natural resources, and the status of local industry are also considered.

Recognized nuclear powers receive a bonus, but their nuclear stockpiles are not factored into the score. Landlocked countries are not docked for lacking a navy, but countries with navies are penalized if their fleets lack diversity. (Helicopter carriers are included alongside traditional fleet carriers in Global Firepower’s ranking.)

NATO countries get a slight bonus because the alliance theoretically shares resources, but in general, a country’s current political and military leadership was not considered (though financial health and stability are).

The top power index score is 0.0000, which is “realistically unattainable,” according to Global Firepower. The closer they are to this number, the more powerful their military is.

Per these criteria, these are the 25 most powerful militaries in the world:

25. Saudi Arabia
Power Index rating: 0.4268
Total population: 33,091,113
Total military personnel: 230,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 848; ranks 12th out of 137 countries
Fighter aircraft: 244; ranks 12th
Combat tanks: 1,062 (ranks 24th)
Total naval assets: 55
Defense budget: $70 billion

24. Poland
Power Index rating: (NATO member) 0.4059
Total population: 38,420,687
Total military personnel: 105,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 469 (ranked 27th of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 93 (ranked 26th)
Combat tanks: 1,100 (ranked 23rd)
Total naval assets: 83
Defense budget: $9.36 billion

23. Vietnam
Power Index rating: 0.3988
Total population: 97,040,334
Total military personnel: 5,482,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 318 (ranked 33rd out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 108 (ranked 21st)
Combat tanks: 2,575 (ranked 28th)
Total naval assets: 65
Defense budget: $3.365 billion

22. Taiwan
Power Index rating: 0.3956
Total population: 23,545,963
Total military personnel: 1.89 million (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 837 (ranked 13th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 286 (ranked 9th)
Combat tanks: 1,885 (ranked 17th)
Total naval assets: 87
Defense budget: $10.725 billion

21. Canada
Power Index rating: (NATO member) 0.3941
Total population: 35,881,659
Total military personnel: 94,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 384 (ranked 31st of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 53 (ranked 38th)
Combat tanks: 80 (ranked 79th)
Total naval assets: 63
Defense budget: $21.2 billion

20. Spain
Power Index rating: (NATO member) 0.3921
Total population: 49,331,076
Total military personnel: 139,500 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 522 (ranked 23rd out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 136 (ranked 18th)
Combat tanks: 327 (ranked 51st)
Total naval assets: 46; one aircraft carrier
Defense budget: $11.6 billion

19. Australia
Power Index rating: 0.3277
Total population: 23,470,145
Total military personnel: 79,700 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 467 (ranked 28th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 78 (ranked 27th)
Combat tanks: 66 (ranked 86th)
Total naval assets: 47; two aircraft carriers
Defense budget: $26.3 billion

18. North Korea
Power Index rating: 0.3274
Total population: 25,381,085
Total military personnel: 7.58 million (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 949 (ranked 11th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 458 (ranked 5th)
Combat tanks: 6,075 (ranked 4th)
Total naval assets: 967
Defense budget: $7.5 billion

17. Israel
Power Index rating: 0.2964
Total population: 8,424,904
Total military personnel: 615,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 595 (ranked 18th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 253 (ranked 11th)
Combat tanks: 2,760 (ranked 8th)
Total naval assets: 65
Defense budget: $19.6 billion

16. Indonesia
Power Index rating: 0.2804
Total population: 262,787,403
Total military personnel: 800,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 451 (ranked 30th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 41 (ranked 43rd)
Combat tanks: 315 (ranked 52nd)
Total naval assets: 221
Defense budget: $6.9 billion

15. Pakistan
Power Index rating: 0.2798
Total population: 207,862,518
Total military personnel: 1,204,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 1,342 (ranked 7th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 348 (ranked 7th)
Combat tanks: 2,200 (ranked 13th)
Total naval assets: 197
Defense budget: $7 billion

14. Iran
Power Index rating: 0.2606
Total population: 83,024,745
Total military personnel: 873,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 509 (ranked 24th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 142 (ranked 17th)
Combat tanks: 1,634 (ranked 18th)
Total naval assets: 398
Defense budget: $6.3 billion

13. Brazil
Power Index rating: 0.2487
Total population: 208,846,892
Total military personnel: 1,674,500 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 706 (ranked 16th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 43 (ranked 42nd)
Combat tanks: 437 (ranked 40th)
Total naval assets: 110
Defense budget: $29.3 billion

12. Egypt
Power Index rating: 0.2283
Total population: 99,413,317
Total military personnel: 920,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 1,092 (ranked 9th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 211 (ranked 13th)
Combat tanks: 2,160 (ranked 14th)
Total naval assets: 319; two aircraft carriers
Defense budget: $4,4 billion

11. Italy
Power Index rating: (NATO member) 0.2277
Total population: 62,246,674
Total military personnel: 357,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 831 (ranked 14th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 94 (ranked 25th)
Combat tanks: 200 (ranked 60th)
Total naval assets: 137; five aircraft carriers
Defense budget: $29.2 billion

10. Germany
Power Index rating: (NATO member) 0.2097
Total population: 80,457,737
Total military personnel: 208,641 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 613 (ranked 17th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 122 (ranked 20th)
Combat tanks: 900 (ranked 26th)
Total naval assets: 81
Defense budget: $49.1 billion

9. Turkey
Power Index rating: (NATO member) 0.2089
Total population: 81,257,239
Total military personnel: 735,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 1,067 (ranked 10th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 207 (ranked 14th)
Combat tanks: 3,200 (ranked 7th)
Total naval assets: 194
Defense budget: $8.6 billion

8. United Kingdom
Power Index rating: (NATO member) 0.1797
Total population: 65,105,246
Total military personnel: 233,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 811 (ranked 15th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 129 (ranked 19th)
Combat tanks: 331 (ranked 49th)
Total naval assets: 76; one aircraft carrier
Defense budget: $47.5 billion

7. South Korea
Power Index rating: 0.1761
Total population: 51,418,097
Total military personnel: 5,827,150 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 1,614 (ranked 5th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 406 (ranked 6th)
Combat tanks: 2,654 (ranked 9th)
Total naval assets: 166; one aircraft carrier
Defense budget: $38.3 billion

6. Japan
Power Index rating: 0.1707
Total population: 126,128,156
Total military personnel: 303,157 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 1,572 (ranked 6th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 297 (ranked 8th)
Combat tanks: 1,004 (ranked 25th)
Total naval assets: 131; four aircraft carriers
Defense budget: $47 billion

5. France
Power Index rating: (NATO member) 0.1584
Total population: 67,364,357
Total military personnel: 388,635 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 1,248 (ranked 8th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 273 (ranked 10th)
Combat tanks: 406 (ranked 44th)
Total naval assets: 118; four aircraft carriers
Defense budget: $40.5 billion

4. India
Power Index rating: 0.1065
Total population: 1,296,834,042
Total military personnel: 3,462,500 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 2,082 (ranked 4th out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 520 (ranked 4th)
Combat tanks: 4,184 (ranked 6th)
Total naval assets: 295; one aircraft carrier
Defense budget: $55.2 billion

3. China
Power Index rating: 0.0673
Total population: 1,384,688,986
Total military personnel: 2,693,000 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 3,187 (ranked 3rd out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 1,222 (ranked 2nd)
Combat tanks: 13,050 (ranked 2nd)
Total naval assets: 714; one aircraft carrier
Defense budget: $224 billion

2. Russia
Power Index rating: 0.0639
Total population: 142,122,776
Total military personnel: 3,586,128 (estimated)
Total aircraft strength: 4,078 (ranked 2nd out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 869 (ranked 3rd)
Combat tanks: 21,932 (ranked 1st)
Total naval assets: 352; one aircraft carrier out of service indefinitely
Defense budget: $44 billion

1. United States
Power Index rating: (NATO member) 0.0615
Total population: 329,256,465
Total military personnel: 2,141,900 (estimated)
Total aircraft: 13,398 (ranked 1st out of 137)
Fighter aircraft: 2,362 (ranked 1st)
Combat tanks: 6,287 (ranked 3rd)
Total naval assets: 415; 24 aircraft carriers
Defense budget: $716 billion

https://www.businessinsider.nl/most...e-world-ranked-2019-9?international=true&r=US

NOTES
Some qualities to observe in regards to the finalized ranking:

+ Ranking does not rely solely on total number of weapons available to any one country; there is also a focus on weapon diversity.
+ Nuclear weapons/stockpiles are NOT taken into account; recognized/suspected nuclear powers are given a bonus.
+ First World, Second World, and Third World statuses are taken into account.
+ Geographical factors, logistical flexibility, natural resources, and local industry are influencial to the final ranking.
+ Total available manpower is a key consideration as it directly influences many other categories.
+ Land-locked nations are NOT penalized for lack of a standing navy; naval powers ARE penalized for lack of diversity in available assets.
+ NATO allies receive a bonus due to the theoretical sharing of war-making resources.
+ A nation's financial stability/health is taken into account.
+ Current political/military leadership is NOT taken into account.

For 2019 there are a total of 137 countries included in the GFP database. New to 2019 is Moldova.

FINAL NOTE: The values used in the finalized GFP ranking are constructed from information that is publicly available from various resources at the time of publishing - though it remains an impossibility to showcase presented values exactly due to limited reporting, a nation's lack of transparency, and other factors beyond our control. In some cases, estimates are used which may be based on previous years' data or, in its place, averages may be applied to complete the entry.

Full ranking:
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

North Korea ranked 18? Their equipments are seriously backdated. They still use weapons which dates back to the Korean war. Their air force still uses MIG 19.

GFP ranks are based on quantity rather than quality. Saudi Arabia and Vietnam can easily fight North Korea without taking Nukes into consideration.

You can't simply rank a nation's army as 18th military power just because they have 86 submarines in the fleet can you?

 

[litman]

does quality of the military equipment and training and fighting spirit of the manpower included in this ? we are just witnessing the world's strongest military looking for peace with those who are not any where in this list.

 

[Nasr]

Global Fire Power? Really? Is this what mindless buffoons do in their spare time? Ranking North Korea, whose weapons are from back in the 1950s, to that of other countries. Competing against the combined military strength of South Korea and America. This list is utterly useless and has no meaningful contribution to knowledge other than tallying up number of equipment in the said country's military. It doesn't take into account on whether the military has a proficient level of serviceability of the said equipment. Nor does it state whether the tanks, fighter-jets, submarines, war-ships and etc have been upgraded to meet the challenges of modern warfare.

Useless article, posted by someone with the intellectual acumen of a buffoon!

 

[obj 705A]

I don't know why some people treat GFP as gospel, GFP are no different than us, just regular armchair generals having fun ranking countries.
IMO a better classification would be something like this:-
1-USA.
2-China.
3-Russia.
4-France.
5-India.
6-UK.
7-South Korea.
8-Japan.
9-Pakistan
10-Israel
11-Turkey.
12-Germany.
13-Italy.
all others are average countries roughly equal in capabilities, the only modification I would do is replace Saudi Arabia with Algeria, Algeria is another average military but it's certainly the second best Arab military.

my criteria was:-
1-size of economy.
2-having a secure weapons supply.
3-the people's willingness to defend their country.
4-Nukes.
5-number of 4th gen fighters.
6-number of modern DDGs (defined as 7k tonnes or more, with VLS).
7-number of SSNs.

 

[LeGenD]

Lol US lost in vietnam and in afghanistan and getting their *** kicked both by Iran and the Houthis. Tell me where USA should be then ?

1. US suffered defeat in Vietnam, Yes, but US emerged victorious in the Cold War with USSR in the end. Look at the entire story and not just Vietnam.

2. US have accomplished all of its military-oriented objectives in Afghanistan (toppling Taliban regime and replacing it with another by 2002; defeating Al-Qaeda Network in the region by 2014; keeping friendly Afghan government in power since 2002). Afghan Taliban have no choice but to 'negotiate' with US to end this war. Perhaps the word 'defeat' need to be elaborated because this war is expected to end on terms that US will find acceptable in the end.

3. You are mistaking KSA-Houthi war in Yemen for an American conflict but it is not. KSA's failure in this war does not apply to US in any way or form. US would have crushed Houthi in the war, but US was not interested in fighting Houthi (lucky Houthi).

4. US defeated Iraq in two wars (Operation Desert Storm in 1991; Operation Iraqi Freedom in the period 2003 - 2011). Saddam regime is undone, and Iraq is loosely adopting democratic model of society. US retain some military bases in Iraq in spite of officially announced withdrawal in 2011.

5. US-led forces defeated ISIL in the Middle East (Operation Inherent Resolve in the period 2014 - 2019). Although Iran contributed to this fight independently, so Iran have gained decent experience.

Good enough for now.

Global Fire Power? Really? Is this what mindless buffoons do in their spare time? Ranking North Korea, whose weapons are from back in the 1950s, to that of other countries. Competing against the combined military strength of South Korea and America. This list is utterly useless and has no meaningful contribution to knowledge other than tallying up number of equipment in the said country's military. It doesn't take into account on whether the military has a proficient level of serviceability of the said equipment. Nor does it state whether the tanks, fighter-jets, submarines, war-ships and etc have been upgraded to meet the challenges of modern warfare.

Useless article, posted by someone with the intellectual acumen of a buffoon!

Allow me to highlight a few merits of DPRK.

1. DPRK have a functional military, thanks to Chinese support.

2. DPRK have developed and fielded numerous ballistic missiles and even nuclear weapons to contend with (any) potential adversary if necessary.

3. DPRK have stationed thousands of artillery pieces along its border with South Korea, and also created scores of undergound complexes and tunnels to complement its warfighting strategy.

4. DPRK nationals live simple lives and are intentionally deprived from the taste of luxuries which make people soft.

I would say that few countries are capable of fighting a war with DPRK at present, and they will have nightmares in the process.

 

[Kailash Kumar]

@Battle of Waterloo

Saudi Arabia has the 3rd largest military budget but is ranked 25th.

I think Saudi Arabia buys expensive weaponry.
And the list also takes other factors such as military personnel, available manpower etc. into account.


@khansaheeb

To withstand the onslaught of the mightiest army the world has ever seen and drive them out then their spunk needs to be recognised. Afghans are true warriors, a few thousand of them took on the US military machine and beat them. Chechnya should be up there too if you go by achievement rather than expenditure and quantity.

I think what you want is list of martial races.
That list would look different than this one.


@Death Professor

amount of military expenditure is incorrect for every country. The article is taking old data and this OP d_b_ is sharing it blindly like every other listing/ranking thread of his.

First of all, I do not share data blindly.

Second, if a ranking is dated 2019 for example, it makes sense (at least to me) that they take data from 2018, for example. Yes, that would be old data, but you can not live in 2019 and expect to have data over the whole year of 2019. You will have to wait till 2020 to get that data.

Third, it is however possible that they use data which is older than 1 year. That could happen. But even so, it does not mean that the whole list itself is wrong.

Fourth, you called me a 'd_b_'. I do not know what that is, because you left out some letters.
Could you be so kind to tell me what it is that you called me?
Do not worry, I will not report you. I have not reported anyone.
I will however reply.


@DejanSRB

France and GB should be ranked above China.

China never won a war against major power in its whole history. It was always saved by other power(s).

They always lose, be it Mongols, Russians, British, Soviets, Japanese...the list is long.
They are probably worst fighting nation in history along South American nations. Just to add that Chinese are miserably weak in physical way. There is no world boxing, MMA, strongman, armlift champions from China.
Germanic, Slavic and Turkic people are best.

This is not a list of human strength or martial races.
This list has more to do with what the conventional military strength of a nation is during peacetime where the focus lies on quantity.


@Indus Pakistan

Which effectively castrates it's purpose. If your assessing the fighting ability of a guy, you size his muscles, reflexes, boxing skills but ignore that he has a gun on his person. You have a fight with him and he ends up shooting you. Would that assessment you made be any good?

I would make a different analogy.

If you see a guy with a gun, would you ask yourself if he knows how to shoot, if he has any experience in shooting, if he has ever killed anyone?

No. You would not. You would only see a gun. Only the weapon.

And ask the Japanese whether nukes are flowers or a lethal military weapon?

How many nukes have been fired at an enemy (so not as a test) since Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
None.

How many conventional missiles or bullets have been fired at an enemy since Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
A lot.

Which one has proven to be more deadly since Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Tell me.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent.
But using them is a last resort and not a first.
When two countries are enemies and they both have nuclear weapons then they are deterring eachother from using them.
Empty threats or dreams of becoming a martyr do not impress anyone anymore.
So, the only time politicians and army generals will use nuclear weapons is when they talk about on Twitter.
That is it.


@Buddhistforlife

North Korea ranked 18? Their equipments are seriously backdated. They still use weapons which dates back to the Korean war. Their air force still uses MIG 19.

GFP ranks are based on quantity rather than quality. Saudi Arabia and Vietnam can easily fight North Korea without taking Nukes into consideration.

You can't simply rank a nation's army as 18th military power just because they have 86 submarines in the fleet can you?

Like you said yourself, the list is based on quantity and not quality.
It is a list of conventional military strength during peacetime.
What you want is a list of which army can beat another army.
That would require a lot more indicators and statistics to work out (hypothetical) scenario's of who can beat who.


@litman

does quality of the military equipment and training and fighting spirit of the manpower included in this ?

It does not.
But how would you measure fighting spirit?
Based on previous battles and their outcome?
Or by looking into their eyes?


@Nasr

Useless article, posted by someone with the intellectual acumen of a buffoon!

I do not have the intellectual acumen of buffoon.
I am at least as smart as a clown.
However I am not such a good clown.
I tell jokes, but they are small jokes.
I will never be able to tell a joke as big as you are.

Global Fire Power? Really? Is this what mindless buffoons do in their spare time? Ranking North Korea, whose weapons are from back in the 1950s, to that of other countries. Competing against the combined military strength of South Korea and America. This list is utterly useless and has no meaningful contribution to knowledge other than tallying up number of equipment in the said country's military. It doesn't take into account on whether the military has a proficient level of serviceability of the said equipment. Nor does it state whether the tanks, fighter-jets, submarines, war-ships and etc have been upgraded to meet the challenges of modern warfare.

No one said that the list was comprehensive.
That is what you assumed.
Just like I assumed that you are mentally stable or not a woman.

 

[Death Professor]

Fourth, you called me a 'd_b_'. I do not know what that is, because you left out some letters.
Could you be so kind to tell me what it is that you called me?
Do not worry, I will not report you. I have not reported anyone.
I will however reply.

Don't care if you report or not. It's a pretty common term, a little bit of common sense and you will get there. Assume whatever you want to assume.

First of all, I do not share data blindly.

nahh, you do quite often. Just a day ago, I came across another bs thread of yours with distorted/false map of Pakistan. Sure you didn't wrote the article, you merely shared it. And if that wasn't posted blindly, I think mods should do some moderating around here.

that they take data from 2018, for example.

It's not just about Pakistan, its about India and other countries too, you can see budget FY18-19 or FY17-18, it clearly shows military expenditure. The figures presented are way older and not just for Pakistan but other countries too.

Third, it is however possible that they use data which is older than 1 year. That could happen. But even so, it does not mean that the whole list itself is wrong.

When the list itself is based on older data how can it realistically present the ranking of country titled as "2019 Military strength ranking". Military expenditure is just one thing that clearly comes to mind, for all I know the amount of military hardware shared here might be old or wrong too.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

So, the only time politicians and army generals will use nuclear weapons is when they talk about on Twitter.
That is it.

Military strength is primarly about self defence. Keeping secure in a hostile world. I know of no better defence by the very nature of mere possession of nukes then any other weapon. Even superpowers will tread around a nation with nukes with extreme care.

 

[Maarkhoor]

@Maarkhoor



Do you know how to read?
And if so, did your read the whole post?
Then you also have read this part:

NOTES
Some qualities to observe in regards to the finalized ranking:
+ Nuclear weapons/stockpiles are NOT taken into account; recognized/suspected nuclear powers are given a bonus.

Do you understand the sentences written above?
I do not think so.
Because, if you would, then you would not have given me such a reply.
Apparently you do not have any reading comprehension skills.
But I do not blame you... I blame the schools.



Bend over and I will do so.

Do you know every other day Iran announces to develop new missiles and other things? In reality they are just mock up...

What Iran have....Just 20 / 30 years old Russian / American weapons with make shift upgrades.

Stop nonsense and falling for rabid Mullah propaganda.

Bend over and I will do so.

No this habit only associated with false flag Indian trolls.

@waz @Dubious

 

[Kailash Kumar]

Don't care if you report or not. It's a pretty common term, a little bit of common sense and you will get there. Assume whatever you want to assume.

Is it a common term in Pakistan or in the whole world?
And is it in English, Urdu or another language?
At least give me some hints.

nahh, you do quite often. Just a day ago, I came across another bs thread of yours with distorted/false map of Pakistan. Sure you didn't wrote the article, you merely shared it. And if that wasn't posted blindly, I think mods should do some moderating around here.

I actually did not analyze the whole map. I looked at the data and where the data was from. Most of the data for that map was from 2018 or 2017 and it came from the World Bank. That seemed reliable to me.
After complaints from other members that the map from Pakistan was not correct, I told, at least one of them, that in the future I will look closer at the maps and see if Kashmir is displayed as an disputed territory.

(https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/maps...culture-in-countries-around-the-world.637214/)

It's not just about Pakistan, its about India and other countries too, you can see budget FY18-19 or FY17-18, it clearly shows military expenditure. The figures presented are way older and not just for Pakistan but other countries too.

When the list itself is based on older data how can it realistically present the ranking of country titled as "2019 Military strength ranking". Military expenditure is just one thing that clearly comes to mind, for all I know the amount of military hardware shared here might be old or wrong too.

Fair enough.
Usually when I post an index it is from a report. In that report they show where the data is from and from what year. With the Global Firepower's 2019 Military Strength Ranking, they did not expand on how old the data is.
Next time if I come across an index where it is not fully clear how old the data is and where they got the data from, I will not post this index.


@Indus Pakistan

Military strength is primarly about self defence. Keeping secure in a hostile world. I know of no better defence by the very nature of mere possession of nukes then any other weapon. Even superpowers will tread around a nation with nukes with extreme care.

I do understand what you are trying to say, but I think we differ in how we see self defence.

Self defence, to me, is when someone (or some country) is aggressive towards you and you defend yourself.
Your last sentence that 'Even superpowers will tread around a nation with nukes with extreme care' has more to do with fear, do you not think?

If someone fears you, because they are afraid that you will do something, do you see that as self defence?
Nothing has happened, so how can you defend yourself?

What I am trying to say, is that I see self defence as an reaction to an action (as in someone attacking you).
Just having nuclear weapons is more a prevention if someone would attack you.
I do not equate preventing to defending, but I think you do.

 

[Maarkhoor]

And? you seem overly butt-hurt that Iran's defence industry is growing at a good pace.





Yeah sure, those mockups just downed the most expsensive US military drone and 2 weeks ago, few Iranian uavs and cruise missiles destroyed 50% of saudi oil facility and everyone is shocked how the us air defences on saudi soil did not even detect anything.

In reality, Iranian systems have probably been battle tested more than most other nation that claim to buils x y or z.

I suggest you refrain talking none-sense.



More unsubstantiated crap.
Tell me, what 20/30 year old upgraded system are these:

B-373 long range air defence system with AESA radars:

Anti-ship ballistic missiles:

Just couple of example. There are literally dozens of fields like this, Iran is one of the forefront nations in UAV development for example.

You're obviously clueless or pretending to be. Even Iran's enemies have started to admire its achievements.


Uzi Rubin, the Israeli defence expert.

Listen and weep:

The only one talking nonsense here is you. You just seem salty and butthurt.

If Allah SWT will and our Govts descides Iran is matter of hours not days.