Top 10 Most Powerful Militaries in 2017

[Aramagedon]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

View attachment 371219View attachment 371220View attachment 371221

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

Brazil, Indonesia , Egypt is no match with Israel. Still they got above rank than Israel. Israel can wash them if it need. Far superior safe multilayer defense shields, and front line superior fighters with best pilot skills, long range missiles, submarines. Indonesia , Egypt , Brazil don't have such multi layer defense shield system .

 

[Theparadox]

View attachment 371219View attachment 371220View attachment 371221

This list doesn't include nuclear power, second, list is a year both India & China has improved significantly since then. Same goes for France & UK, Russia everyone is modernizing their military. Japan has started investing in defence sector too. Saudi Arabia & Egypt are buying high-end weapons, so we will see significant change in list for 2017.

 

[Hamza913]

best excuse i have ever read lol

It's true. Even if they do, they can only send a small portion of their fleet. So again, we have the numbers advantage.

View attachment 371219View attachment 371220View attachment 371221

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

Those guys aren't the most reliable in my opinion. For example, Israel is far more powerful than Indonesia.

 

[xyxmt]

here ya go another ones of those top 10 for ya

 

[AntiToxic]

Pakistan is a nuclear power and has one of the largest army's in the world. Being a nuclear power automatically means that if anyone tries to cripple you, you can most certainly cripple them in return. It's impossible to defeat a nuclear power in a war unless you are also a nuclear power, or that nuclear power is so conventionally decrepit it cannot successfully launch its missiles or defend them (like North Korea). That's why Pakistan is in 8th place.

India is in 7th simply because the 6 other nations above it are more powerful. You cannot genuinely tell me you think India is more powerful than any of those nations, because it's not. India isn't that much ahead of Pakistan either, both countries are in a MAD situation.

Israel is at 4th because it has some of the best trained soldiers in the world, some of the best equipment, and it's army is pretty damn big. Again, compare it with the other countries below it. It's very powerful, much more than people give it credit for.



If your trap is incapable of arguing, keep it shut.



Fake? What are you autistic?

Not me your ISPR is autistic . when claiming fake test as real with CGI...

 

[Hamza913]

Not me your ISPR is autistic . when claiming fake test as real with CGI...

You are the dumbest person I've come across here. Congrats, that's a tough cake to top.

If you genuinely believe your stupid news organisations and think the test was CGI, then you probably also believe in Sir G Kaal strikes. You are a lost cause, who cannot be helped. So instead we will just laugh at you.

 

[gambit]

Here is the reality...

It is not as if this kind of list/ranking is new. It is older than firearms. In the days of swords and spears, spies did gather and compile such reports.

In gathering and compiling such reports, it must be with the understanding that an assessment of a particular army must be based upon known capabilities that is applicable to all militaries, even if only in principle.

For example: The US is the only military power to be capable of conducting transhemispheric operations.

In the old days, armies did indeed cross lands and seas to wage wars. What make the US military different is that unlike those armies of those swords and spears days, the US military can transport not only fighting men but supplies them for the duration of the campaign. The armies of old had to live off the land and their progress completely depends on the capacity of the land to sustain that army.

The point here is that for any given capability, if in making comparison a country for any reason cannot meet the technical challenge posed by that capability, the power and lethality gap between the two countries in that comparison widens. Saying country A is number 1 and country B is number 2, while not quite completely useless, is also not that useful either. It is like saying the Ferrari is number 1 and the Mini is number 2.

Such a shallow comparison gives the intelligent reader no context if that intelligent reader have even just a textbook knowledge of military affairs. Now add in if this intelligent reader have any actual experience in the military or governmental service that works with the military, then to this intelligent reader, the comparison will be inadequate.

The definition of 'aggregate' is...

a whole formed by combining several (typically disparate) elements.

The US military, as an organism, is an aggregate of discrete capabilities that works together to achieve military objectives.

So in principle, since the US military demonstrated several times that it is capable of conducting transhemispheric operations, ALL militaries must be held against that capability.

If the USAF is capable of fielding 'stealth', ALL air forces must be held against that standard.

If the USN is capable of deploying one aircraft carrier fleet per ocean, ALL navies must be held against that standard.

If the US Army is capable of fielding airborne troops, ALL land armies must be held against that capability.

 

[haidian]

In the long run, all will boil down to who spends more. The size of the military budget will decide each nation's spot in the end.

 

[LeGenD]

Here is the reality...

It is not as if this kind of list/ranking is new. It is older than firearms. In the days of swords and spears, spies did gather and compile such reports.

In gathering and compiling such reports, it must be with the understanding that an assessment of a particular army must be based upon known capabilities that is applicable to all militaries, even if only in principle.

For example: The US is the only military power to be capable of conducting transhemispheric operations.

In the old days, armies did indeed cross lands and seas to wage wars. What make the US military different is that unlike those armies of those swords and spears days, the US military can transport not only fighting men but supplies them for the duration of the campaign. The armies of old had to live off the land and their progress completely depends on the capacity of the land to sustain that army.

The point here is that for any given capability, if in making comparison a country for any reason cannot meet the technical challenge posed by that capability, the power and lethality gap between the two countries in that comparison widens. Saying country A is number 1 and country B is number 2, while not quite completely useless, is also not that useful either. It is like saying the Ferrari is number 1 and the Mini is number 2.

Such a shallow comparison gives the intelligent reader no context if that intelligent reader have even just a textbook knowledge of military affairs. Now add in if this intelligent reader have any actual experience in the military or governmental service that works with the military, then to this intelligent reader, the comparison will be inadequate.

The definition of 'aggregate' is...

a whole formed by combining several (typically disparate) elements.

The US military, as an organism, is an aggregate of discrete capabilities that works together to achieve military objectives.

So in principle, since the US military demonstrated several times that it is capable of conducting transhemispheric operations, ALL militaries must be held against that capability.

If the USAF is capable of fielding 'stealth', ALL air forces must be held against that standard.

If the USN is capable of deploying one aircraft carrier fleet per ocean, ALL navies must be held against that standard.

If the US Army is capable of fielding airborne troops, ALL land armies must be held against that capability.

Excellent analysis and absolutely true.

Statistics does not captures qualitative matters properly. That is why a qualitative analysis is necessary.

American war-machine is far ahead of that of any country in the matters of power-projection and logistics management, not just good in defensive role.

On the other hand, some countries can fight well in their home-turf but they cannot project power in other parts of the world like the US and fall short in a number of areas.

 

[Surya 1]

Russia is great in technologies but they do not have the numbers.

lol

I have seen poeple ranking Pakistan 4th after US, Russia and china. So this is a smaller LOL.

Brazil, Indonesia , Egypt is no match with Israel. Still they got above rank than Israel. Israel can wash them if it need. Far superior safe multilayer defense shields, and front line superior fighters with best pilot skills, long range missiles, submarines. Indonesia , Egypt , Brazil don't have such multi layer defense shield system .

Very very correct.

 

[AUz]

Here is the reality...

It is not as if this kind of list/ranking is new. It is older than firearms. In the days of swords and spears, spies did gather and compile such reports.

In gathering and compiling such reports, it must be with the understanding that an assessment of a particular army must be based upon known capabilities that is applicable to all militaries, even if only in principle.

For example: The US is the only military power to be capable of conducting transhemispheric operations.

In the old days, armies did indeed cross lands and seas to wage wars. What make the US military different is that unlike those armies of those swords and spears days, the US military can transport not only fighting men but supplies them for the duration of the campaign. The armies of old had to live off the land and their progress completely depends on the capacity of the land to sustain that army.

The point here is that for any given capability, if in making comparison a country for any reason cannot meet the technical challenge posed by that capability, the power and lethality gap between the two countries in that comparison widens. Saying country A is number 1 and country B is number 2, while not quite completely useless, is also not that useful either. It is like saying the Ferrari is number 1 and the Mini is number 2.

Such a shallow comparison gives the intelligent reader no context if that intelligent reader have even just a textbook knowledge of military affairs. Now add in if this intelligent reader have any actual experience in the military or governmental service that works with the military, then to this intelligent reader, the comparison will be inadequate.

The definition of 'aggregate' is...

a whole formed by combining several (typically disparate) elements.

The US military, as an organism, is an aggregate of discrete capabilities that works together to achieve military objectives.

So in principle, since the US military demonstrated several times that it is capable of conducting transhemispheric operations, ALL militaries must be held against that capability.

If the USAF is capable of fielding 'stealth', ALL air forces must be held against that standard.

If the USN is capable of deploying one aircraft carrier fleet per ocean, ALL navies must be held against that standard.

If the US Army is capable of fielding airborne troops, ALL land armies must be held against that capability.

@gambit Great post, as always.

U.S military is not even on same planet as others. We all here know and accept that.

Btw, if you had to make a "ranking" of your own--say top 10-15 military powers of the today's world--how would your list look like?

 

[Surya 1]

In the long run, all will boil down to who spends more. The size of the military budget will decide each nation's spot in the end.

Russia has less than half defense budget of China? It proves you wrong.

 

[ito]

Here is my top 10
1. US
2. Russia
3. China
4. India
5. France
6. UK
7. Japan
8. Germany
9. Italy
10. Turkey

 

[haidian]

Russia has less than half defense budget of China? It proves you wrong.

I said in the long run, China just started building up a decade or so ago, is still doing he catch up work, but it's catching up fast cause of the money she has now.