| MarescialloDiCampo | 11 Jul 2014 7:25 a.m. PST |
After reading the article at the link:
link the article rates the worlds militaries but does not take into account the "quality of equipment, the training, or the professionalism" of the rated militaries. The site global firepower lists 102 countries and ranks them.
link Do you think these are a somewhat true listing? and how would you rate various militaries, based on your knowledge of that military. |
| John the OFM | 11 Jul 2014 7:32 a.m. PST |
Belgium has nukes?  |
| daubere | 11 Jul 2014 7:43 a.m. PST |
Perhaps they hide them on Britain's as yet uncommissioned, and thus aircraftless, aircraft carrier? |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 11 Jul 2014 7:47 a.m. PST |
Second link: nuclear capabiity is NOT taken into account. Not very realistic then… though the top places are still taken by nuclear powers. |
Gunfreak  | 11 Jul 2014 8:21 a.m. PST |
I like that in both lists, Belgium is more powerfull then Norway… No offence to Belgians on the forum, but I don't buy it… Oh well atleast We can invade denmark and Finland and just hope Sweden dosn't invade us… |
| jpattern2 | 11 Jul 2014 8:43 a.m. PST |
Careful, Gunfreak, Iceland might strike while you're otherwise occupied. |
| Gunfreak | 11 Jul 2014 8:52 a.m. PST |
Yes, with their huge fleet of supercarriers. Iceland only hot like 300 000 people but got an army and navy manpower of 1 million.
Anyoing part of the second link is that it missed the population of norway with like 450 000 people.
|
| Bob Runnicles | 11 Jul 2014 11:47 a.m. PST |
The first article includes the line "The index focuses on quantity, ignoring significant quantitative differences"….I suspect one of those is meant to be 'quality' lol (the latter one, given the way the rest of the article reads and the stats presented). |
 Legion 4  | 11 Jul 2014 1:50 p.m. PST |
Very interesting list … I don't see ISIS/ISIL/IS on the list … yet …  |
| Maddaz111 | 11 Jul 2014 2:18 p.m. PST |
Quantitative differences. That which are actually objective properties. So I might say x is better than y, but someone else might say no x is only better than y when you are not fighting a land war in Asia, So it depends on what you are using it for.
To go back to the original report.
I think it's rubbish, since it is completely inaccurate. Our aircraft carrier UK, is inferior to the French one. And I don't think our population would be able to draft from twenty nine million citizens… |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 11 Jul 2014 3:51 p.m. PST |
Belgium is where NATO HQ is (Brussels), which also gave us JCVD hence his nickname "Muscles from Brussels." That counts for something, right? |
| Charlie 12 | 11 Jul 2014 7:51 p.m. PST |
"does not take into account the "quality of equipment, the training, or the professionalism" of the rated militaries." Hmmmm… Isn't leaving out, like, 90% of the equation? Cute little fiction piece, this…. |
| HistoryPhD | 12 Jul 2014 6:06 a.m. PST |
If an author can't get his spelling correct, then I don't imagine his research is correct either |
| Legion 4 | 12 Jul 2014 6:43 a.m. PST |
"quality of equipment, the training, or the professionalism" of the rated militaries." I agree … that is the X-Factor, that really makes all the difference … In '90 it was said, Saddam had the 4th biggest Army on the planet … Well we saw how that went. Number don't always mean victory … |
| Gunfreak | 13 Jul 2014 11:56 a.m. PST |
Well it find this out once and for all. I orderd my Prime minister to order the invasion of Belgium. We are now in a state of war. By next week we will see how has the most powerfull armed forces… Puts if ride of the vakyre |
