strong military or a strong economy

[RedBeard]

Strong economy, strong military.

 

[Chogy]

Both, but if I had to pick one, it'd be economy.

With a hyper-economy, you can exert real power and influence, even force, in the world without ever firing a shot.

And a powerful military simply cannot even exist without a strong economy, so the question is moot, in a sense. You MUST establish economy before military.

 

[Pakistanisage]

My question was not

Will you have strong military if you have strong economy or vice versa

I asked which one is more important to gain international power and dominance

The correct answer to your question is BOTH.

 

[c-dome1]

you can have strong militery without strong economy look egypt example

 

[haviZsultan]

Both are equally important. One for survival of the state, the other to feed its people and have a good standard of living.

 

[c-dome1]

Both are equally important. One for survival of the state, the other to feed its people and have a good standard of living.

if the country dont have enemies you can invest in other things like mexico invest only 0.5 percent og gdp in militery the problem of mexico is internal the cartel of drugs

 

[haviZsultan]

if the country dont have enemies you can invest in other things like mexico invest only 0.5 percent og gdp in militery the problem of mexico is internal the cartel of drugs

Surprising I might say, bro. Because if you look at California it all belonged to Mexico once. A lot of Mexicans don't see the Americans very positively. For example the movie Machete gave air to common Mexican sentiment that "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us", meaning California/Texas belongs to Mexico.

In actuality I feel Mexico has just given up the idea of facing the might of the United States alone and that is the reason for low military budget though hostilities exist. They learned the lesson in the formative years of the United States when they fought their war. US military power has only risen. The same reason we Pakistanis don't give US a bloody nose is the same reason for Mexico. Who could, if anyone, could fight the military might of the worlds strongest power? That is why the world tends to accept their decisions, no matter how arrogant they are.

Like Trumps ban on migrants. If you look at it all white people are migrants to US-I might add migrants who culled the native Indian population that ruled the land. It is hypocricy that more migrants should not come in from Mexico or Arabia when they themselves are migrants.

 

[Pakistan First]

Which one in more Important for international recognition and power?

Share your views

BOTH.

The definition of "economy" as accepted by the world in general is deeply flawed.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

How much money Pakistan spend on military ?

I am sure it must be huge and this money would have been utilise for welfare of common people but this was possible only if we had good friendly neighbours

 

[RealNapster]

I asked which one is more important to gain international power and dominance

it's not about which one. it's about "which one now and which one later".

SO i think the economy come's first. First be a economic giant and then grow a strong military.

To remind you, Your economy will back your military, your military can't back your economy.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

To remind you, Your economy will back your military, your military can't back your economy.

You are right but its very complex
Imagine if a rich nation cannot defend itself then any other nation with strong military can come in and take over all of its resources

 

[RealNapster]

it's not about which one. it's about "which one now and which one later".

SO i think the economy come's first. First be a economic giant and then grow a strong military.

To remind you, Your economy will back your military, your military can't back your economy.

don't be selective SIR. @Proudpakistaniguy

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

don't be selective SIR. @Proudpakistaniguy

I agree with you. It was just counter-Argument
If we look at past then military power was everything. It did help strong armies to conquer wealthy but peaceful land/people easily and then they could easily make themselves more rich after taking over the resources of defeated nation

 

[RealNapster]

I agree with you. It was just counter-Argument
If we look at past then military power was everything. It did help strong armies to conquer wealthy but peaceful land/people easily and then they could easily make themselves more rich after taking over the resources of defeated nation

Yes exactly. that was the way but in Past. not any more, we can study the case of USSR as an example here. they had very very strong military but their economy was unable to "back their military". so they collapsed. to remind you, the collapse of USSR was not a military collapse but an economical collapse. their military defended that land for more then 200 year's and didn't let anyone to even steal a single inch of it's land. but their economy split their country into 15 pieces.

 

[The SC]

Economy protected by military.. This is in all cases with some exceptions obviously, Pakistan for instance, didn't have a good economy after its independence, and had to face existential threats at the same time, so it had to work on both at the same time.. but in today's world, economy seems to have precedence, and that is still very relative! We have china as the best example but most other "world economic powers" are so because they are privileged by the US military umbrella..