Changes to GFP's list.

[Scandinavisksoldat]

On the two occasions when I made a reference to GFP's list of the world's top military powers, it immediately came 'under fire' so to speak. It is no doubt that it does have some problems, based on what they themselves say on their website:

Nuclear weapons, past and present military experience, training and equipment quality are not taken into account.

So, I was wondering: what changes to GFP's list would you make, and why?
Here's what GFP put on its list:

1

1. United States2


2.Russia

3

3.China

4

4.India

5

5.Germany

6

6.France

7

7.Japan

8

8.Turkey9

9.Brazil

10

10.Great Britain

11

11.Italy

12

12.South Korea

13

13.Indonesia14

14.Mexico

15

15.Canada

16

16.Iran17

17.Egypt18

18.North Korea

19

19.Spain

20

20.Pakistan

21

21.Australia

22

22.Saudi Arabia23

23.Thailand24

24.Argentina25

25.Sweden

26

26.Israel

27

27.Greece28

28.Taiwan

29

29.Syria30

30.Philippines3131

31..Poland3232.

32.Ukraine

33

33.Norway

34

34.Iraq35

35.Libya

36

36.Venezuela37

37.Lebanon38

38.Nepal

39

39.Afghanistan

For more information on this list, visit:
http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Here are some obvious changes that I think should be made:

1. China should be moved to #2. In the event of a war, the communists could easily draft millions of people into its military due to its emmense population of nearly 1.5 billion. They could also force a lot of citizens to work in arms and ammunitions plants, to arm the vast new drafted army.

2. For similar reasons, India should be moved to #3.

3. Pakistan should be moved up due to its nuclear weapons.

[Sidmen]

1. China should be moved to #2. In the event of a war, the communists could easily draft millions of people into its military due to its emmense population of nearly 1.5 billion. They could also force a lot of citizens to work in arms and ammunitions plants, to arm the vast new drafted army.

2. For similar reasons, India should be moved to #3.

Without large stockpiles of weaponry, these armies would be unarmed and quickly wiped out...

The 'drafted' weapon manufacturers would suffer from a lack of specialized machinery required to build the more advanced weapons of war (like capable AT guns, and planes) Not only that, but the large drafted army and labor force would be extremely hard to feed - requiring them to devote more labor to the fields, reducing the draftable recruits.

[wilting]

Hmm, that list doesn't strike me as particularly pertinent to the modern context. Its' concession of what it doesn't take account of amounts to an admission of that if you ask me.

It might be a correct measure of 'guns', but the placements of the UK and France in particular strike me as odd in the context of power projection capabililty, (I'm thinking in terms of Naval assets, particularly aircraft carriers, overseas bases and so forth), which I believe is of great importance. But maybe I'm mistaken.

[Burnum]

Indonesia, 13? Please, their equipment is so sub standard Australia would beat their army in a matter weeks.

[NakedBarbarian2]

Indonesia, 13? Please, their equipment is so sub standard Australia would beat their army in a matter weeks.

Yeah that caught me by suprise as well. I would have thought our airforce would have been able to bomb them into submission in a matter of weeks. However i also recall a friend telling me Australias airforce is so understocked of bombs it would run out of ammunition within 24 hours of being invaded.

EDIT: Wow, Indonesia beats Australia in pretty much everysingle one of those GFP's except for gold reserves. Makes you think whether those armour, airforce and naval numbers are made up of antiquated equipment tho.

bbl = Barrel of Oil (1 bbl = 42 US Gallons or 159 litres)
Value of "0" or "NR" = Not Reported



Australia Indonesia
Flag

9,764,940 Available Military Manpower 120,524,758
8,076,164 Available Personnel Fit for Military Service 98,940,145
277,833 Average Yearly Available Military Manpower 4,340,620
471 Aircraft 613
645 Armored Vehicles 969
385 Artillery 700
36 Missile Defense Weapons 91
947 Infantry Support Weapons 1,790
56 Navy Ships 121
52 Merchant Marine Strength 965
11 Ports 10
572,400 bbl/day Oil Production 1,070,000 bbl/day
903,200 bbl/day Oil Consumption 1,100,000 bbl/day
1,437,000 bbl Proven Oil Reserves 4,301,000 bbl
810,641 Km Roadway Coverage 368,360 Km
38,550 Km Railway Coverage 6,458 Km
2,000 Km Waterway Coverage 21,579 Km
7,686,850 Sq Km Total Land Area 1,919,440 Sq Km
461 Airports 652
10,900,000 Labor Force 108,000,000
$642,100,000,000 Purchasing Power $845,600,000,000
$71,150,000,000 Gold Reserves $53,270,000,000

[Sebdeas]

Israel below Egypt?

[Gokturk]

Nuclear weapons, past and present military experience, training and equipment quality are not taken into account.

Past and present military experience: It should be included. Israel should be moved to 6 or 7, behind Turkey. These two countries are very effective at guerilla warfare.

Equipment quality are not taken into account: It should be included. For example, the most of China's weapons came from Soviet times.

[Rapax]

@svensksoldat:
Do you make money with this website or what exactly is your fascination with GFP? Try globalsecurity.org if you wanna assess military strength. It requires more research but is a lot less simplistic and generalized.

I mean, this list puts Germany on N° 5 and we don't even spend as much on the military as France or Great Britain.

[Bokks]

I usually hear of it as:
1-US
2-China
3-Russia
4-India
5-Pakistan
6-UK
7-Israel
8-Germany
9-France
10-Switzerland (ok, that's a joke)

Personally I think that Israel's stronger than Pakistan, and in this list #'s 4-9 would be nearly neck-in-neck. Japanbeing in the top-ten is rediculous, they haven't had anything besides a small defenseive armed force since 1945. Even if they had the technology stockpiled--which they generally export whatever they have, so they probably don't--they wouldn't have the experiance to do anything. The most experiance living Japanese soldier was the last Imperial soldier, who surrendered in 1975, 30 years after the war ended, and he's currently ranching in Brazil. I should also thing, too, that Israel's history of beating Egypt in every war that they've fought against eachother for the last 50 years should cue someone in that Egypt is not so much more powerful, and I mean that completely circumspectually,I have nothing against Egypt (actually I'm friends with more Egyptians than I am with Israelis).
That's really all I have to say right now... actually...

[Richard]

"Training and equipment quality are NOT taken into account".

Well I guess that explains Nepal being there, and India having such a high position. Also LOL at Iraq. What's being included here, their Saddam or their post-Saddam forces?

Also, I doubt some of the stats listed are of any use. "Aircraft" assumes that all countries have similar proportions of support, bombers, fighters etc to each other which certainly isn't the case. How many of Indonesia's aircraft are combat aircraft compared to Australia's for instance?