Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Top 20 Most Powerful Countries in the World

Top 20 Most Powerful Countries in the World
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 09:48 AM
 
For general interest only.


Ranked By Real Economic Potential to Wage War
-------------------------------------
1. United States
2. Japan
3. Germany
4. United Kingdom
5. France
6. Italy
7. China
8. Canada
9. Spain
10. Mexico
11. Korea, Rep.
12. Netherlands
13. Australia
14. Brazil
15. Russian Federation
16. Switzerland
17. Taiwan
18. Belgium
19. Sweden
20. Austria


Some more details:

The World is 48% stronger than the U.S. (primarily due to Japan and the Big 4).

The U.S. is:

- 2.6x stronger than Japan.
- 12.4x stronger than the O.I.C. states
- 14.4x stronger than China.
- 20.3x stronger than Mexico.

Japan is 2.0x stronger than Germany.

China is 2.5x stronger than Russia and 8.2x stronger than India (#34). Note that India is far weaker than its GDP would imply.

Israel (#32) is 45% stronger than its neighbors Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon combined.

North Korea and Pakistan are each hollow shells: a hard military crust on the outside, and a vast economic wasteland on the inside. Both countries, which behave as though they are in a constant state of war, have already reached an economic state of obligatory surrender. Neither country has collapsed only because outside powers continue to prop them up.

The U.S. would've single-handedly defeated Iraq in 2003 in under 96 days, whether Iraqis fought back or not. Economic sanctions had clearly decimated Iraq's ability to wage war. The U.S. can also defeat Iran within 358 days, Libya within 147 days, Syria within 122 days, and Cuba within 97 days.


The above is based on my own calculations using world population and economic data for 2002.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:03 AM
 
Interesting numbers, but could you elaborate on how you calculated it?

Because I highly doubt that Belgium, Switzerland, Australia and Germany are all that more powerful than Sweden. Actually I think that only Germany could perhaps rival Sweden in fighting wars of those countries.

So, could you perhaps elaborate on how you calculated this?


ps. I would actually like it if the US would attack Iran, you would get your butts kicked

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:09 AM
 
Russia didn't make the list? How'd you figure the Iraqi war stat?

Cool list.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:27 AM
 
well damn.

look who's #1.

The only country that doesn't simply move lips and warm chairs and bitch about what other countries are doing wrong.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:28 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Interesting numbers, but could you elaborate on how you calculated it?

Because I highly doubt that Belgium, Switzerland, Australia and Germany are all that more powerful than Sweden. Actually I think that only Germany could perhaps rival Sweden in fighting wars of those countries.

So, could you perhaps elaborate on how you calculated this?


ps. I would actually like it if the US would attack Iran, you would get your butts kicked
It's based on "Economic Potential" to wage war. Even if the US had zero weapons and no military - we'd still be #1 on that list.
     
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:30 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
ps. I would actually like it if the US would attack Iran, you would get your butts kicked
You think so?
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:30 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
well damn.

look who's #1.

The only country that doesn't simply move lips and warm chairs and bitch about what other countries are doing wrong.
Zimbabwe doen't mince words either.

I seem to recall sanctions on CUba, and periodic threats to remove Castro.
     
f1000  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:31 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Interesting numbers, but could you elaborate on how you calculated it?
I'll try to elaborate more when I have time.

By the way, Saad, Russia is in the list (#15).

Oh, and Spliffpappy, no nationalism please. I'm more interested in trying to predict how global alliances might shift based on perceived or actual imbalances of relative national power. Countries that are at high risk for U.S. invasion, for example, are more likely to acquire nukes; they may also be inspired, though, to search for diplomatic solutions (e.g., Libya).

I'm also interested in seeing how other countries perceive each other. Much of East Asia, for example, STILL feels more threatened by Japan than by China.
( Last edited by f1000; Jun 4, 2004 at 10:41 AM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:31 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
You think so?
Yup, or at least you would suffer so heavy casualties that you wouldn't go to any unprovoked wars any time soon......

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:32 AM
 
Originally posted by f1000:
I'll try to elaborate more when I have time.

By the way, Saad, Russia is in the list (#15).
k, thanks

Like I said, very intersting list.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:34 AM
 
Originally posted by f1000:
I'll try to elaborate more when I have time.

By the way, Saad, Russia is in the list (#15).
Sorry. I would have assumed that it would be higher. It's international investments still hold sway.

Good list.
     
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:36 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Yup, or at least you would suffer so heavy casualties that you wouldn't go to any unprovoked wars any time soon......
All we need is air superiority, you saying the Iranian air force can match the us military....laughable
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:40 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
All we need is air superiority, you saying the Iranian air force can match the us military....laughable
They could first cause real problems for you with their airforce, and after that you still wouldn't be able to fly freely since their air-defences are among the better ones thanks to Russia.

How much have you studied Irans military capabilities?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:40 AM
 
The ability to wage war, economic or otherwise, is no measure of power.

The ability to win war, however, is another matter ...
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:41 AM
 
I'd hate for my country to be any lower than #1 on that list.

Because being #2 (or worse) would mean I continue to exist only at the leisure of the #1 country.


The inability to wage war, economic or otherwise, is a measure of weakness.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:42 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'd hate for my country to be any lower than #1 on that list.

Because being #2 (or worse) would mean I continue to exist only at the leisure of the #1 country.
So you think that Sweden exists only at the leisure of the US?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:42 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
So you think that Sweden exists only at the leisure of the US?
Absolutely.

( you ain't gotta like it...but it's true. Hell, the world exists because we allow it to )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:44 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Absolutely.


thanks

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:45 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'd hate for my country to be any lower than #1 on that list.

Because being #2 (or worse) would mean I continue to exist only at the leisure of the #1 country.


The inability to wage war, economic or otherwise, is a measure of weakness.
The nations with nuclear weaponry allow the US to exist at their leisure and convenience. The US will not invade a nation with a known nuclear arsenal. No president would be willing to have atomics lobbed atomics at the US if it is not absolutely necessary.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:47 AM
 
Originally posted by Saad:
The nations with nuclear weaponry allow the US to exist at their leisure and convenience. The US will not invade a nation with a known nuclear arsenal. No president would be willing to have atomics lobbed atomics at the US if it is not absolutely necessary.
Actually, their nuclear arsenals are worthless against our missile defense system (you can pretend it doesn't exist if it makes you feel better). What did you think we were doing on those thousands of Space Shuttle flights? Fixing the Hubble telescope? "Thousand dollar toilet seats" is a great way of funding programs such as this.

"hey, buddy, order me a hundred cases of those $4,200 claw hammers." The taxpayers will throw a fit - but it's better than telling them the truth.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:48 AM
 
Originally posted by Saad:
The US will not invade a nation with a known nuclear arsenal.
It did.

Everyone knows that Saddam had WMD.

Unless they didn't.
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:49 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Absolutely.

( you ain't gotta like it...but it's true. Hell, the world exists because we allow it to )
And I suppose that you wonder why some people in the world don't like you.
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:51 AM
 
Originally posted by christ:
And I suppose that you wonder why some people in the world don't like you.
No. I figured out a long time ago that "envy" is the reason.
     
Ambrosia - el Presidente
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:51 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
ps. I would actually like it if the US would attack Iran, you would get your butts kicked
I'm sure you'd like to see that happen; this much is clear (us getting our butts kicked).

However Iran would not pose a challenge. No country does, actually -- it just depends on how tactful about collateral damage we wish to be. Launch a couple hundred nukes, and before you can say "oops", Iran disappears.

Thankfully for all the world, we have no interest in doing such a thing.

Iraq fought Iran to a stand-still; the US obliterated Iraq twice in a decade. And this is not using much of the US's arsenal, and instead fighting a more politically correct war to minimize civilian casualties.

I'd actually say his ranking is rather off, because it's going just on an economic basis. Japan right now would be a push-over; and I believe China is vastly underrated. The gap between the US and the rest of the world, militarily speaking, is even larger than the economic gap.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:52 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
No. I figured out a long time ago that "envy" is the reason.
Envy of what?
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:55 AM
 
Originally posted by moki:

Iraq fought Iran to a stand-still; the US obliterated Iraq twice in a decade. And this is not using much of the US's arsenal, and instead fighting a more politically correct war to minimize civilian casualties.
And for how long had Iraq been fighting a full scale war before you entered the scene?

You always seem to forget that little point.....

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Ambrosia - el Presidente
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:56 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
No. I figured out a long time ago that "envy" is the reason.
It's not so much envy as it is a sense of powerlessness. Many countries don't envy the US for much, but they very much do feel and dislike the relative impotence.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 10:57 AM
 
Originally posted by moki:
It's not so much envy as it is a sense of powerlessness. Many countries don't envy the US for much, but they very much do feel and dislike the relative impotence.
And what impotence is that? Could you elaborate on that?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 11:03 AM
 
The impotence that results in no topics related to your country ever appearing in the MacNN war/political lounge.

Do a search for "Iceland" and get back to me.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 11:05 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The impotence that results in no topics related to your country ever appearing in the MacNN war/political lounge.

Do a search for "Iceland" and get back to me.


For your information we are now responsible for Kabul airport and Pristina airpost, as well as other jobs for NATO. Perhaps you should read up a bit

edited to add: and we don't **** up as often as you Yanks so we aren't much in the news

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 11:08 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Actually, their nuclear arsenals are worthless against our missile defense system (you can pretend it doesn't exist if it makes you feel better). What did you think we were doing on those thousands of Space Shuttle flights? Fixing the Hubble telescope? "Thousand dollar toilet seats" is a great way of funding programs such as this.

"hey, buddy, order me a hundred cases of those $4,200 claw hammers." The taxpayers will throw a fit - but it's better than telling them the truth.
All it takes is one to get through. All of the public demonstrations have been failures. Nuclear weaponry does not necessarily need to be delivered as a missile.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 11:26 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
ps. I would actually like it if the US would attack Iran, you would get your butts kicked
More than the US is getting its ass kicked in Iraq? or less?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 11:28 AM
 
Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
More than the US is getting its ass kicked in Iraq? or less?


Remember what I said about "from the Nile to the Euphrates?" It's getting closer and closer.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 11:35 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
ps. I would actually like it if the US would attack Iran, you would get your butts kicked
Yeah, that would be a dream come true.

Considering that Iran and Iraq fought to a standstill, and that the US defeated Iraq with just a really big "boo," that seems hard to believe.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: European Union, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 11:45 AM
 
Sorry my loved americans, but the world does NOT exist to honor the USA... Germany is exporting more goods then America, even that you have 200 million people more. And don't forget that France and England got nukes, too. Not as much as america, but still enough to blow your ass up... And in fact i don't hate it to live in a country not beeing the number one. Germany was the worlds strongest nation for a long period, but life turned out to be better for us stepping back in the second row...

Greets,
Essex
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 11:46 AM
 
Number one on the list and still getting their asses kicked in Iraq.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 12:06 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Actually, their nuclear arsenals are worthless against our missile defense system (you can pretend it doesn't exist if it makes you feel better). What did you think we were doing on those thousands of Space Shuttle flights? Fixing the Hubble telescope? "Thousand dollar toilet seats" is a great way of funding programs such as this.

"hey, buddy, order me a hundred cases of those $4,200 claw hammers." The taxpayers will throw a fit - but it's better than telling them the truth.
After the first nuke, the rest are rather useless.

The cold war wasn't about who could launch the most... it was about who could launch the first, the fastest.
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 12:11 PM
 
Stupid list. Doesn't mean much. Mexico at No. 10? Singapore spends more on military and weaponry than half of those nations. Where is it at?

Israel? Where is it at? What about other nuclear nations such as India and Pakistan?

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 12:13 PM
 
And anyone who thinks the US actually does stupid stuff like spend $4,200 on a claw hammer needs to lay off the crack pipe. That "wasted" money goes to spook firms like the CIA for black ops.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 12:14 PM
 
Originally posted by moki:
It's not so much envy as it is a sense of powerlessness. Many countries don't envy the US for much, but they very much do feel and dislike the relative impotence.
So what good is power when you don't have control? A testosteron booster?

Especially when using either blunt instrument, military or economic power, tends to reverberate back as more uncontrollable, long-lasting backslashes. The only way to build prosperity and safety for any interest group is to assure stability, where these can be grown.

I think any people are concerned about the concentration of such power into the hands of governments perceived as fascist and totalitarian with a pre-emptive agenda. China is a scary example, with the Taiwan and Hong Kong situation, the atmosphere of fear. The popular opinion in the middle east and europe is busy painting a picture of the current US administration as another.

So impotence is right. It's more fear of the unknowingly motivated madmen with their fingers on the button, than envy of military might.

J
     
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: with stupid
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 12:53 PM
 
Originally posted by Randman:
Israel?
so many people seem to be missing this.

Originally posted by f1000:
Ranked By Real Economic Potential to Wage War
Israel has the economic power of a blind crippled old man in intensive care. We are in such national debt that any war we go to is funded almost entirely by No#1

that is why it is no where to be seen on the list. and why most those other nations asked about arnt.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 12:59 PM
 
And making a list of nations based on real economic power to wage war is silly. The top 20 countries in the world should be a combination of money, power and influence. And for most counties, 2 out 3 ain't bad.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 01:12 PM
 
Originally posted by moki:
It's not so much envy as it is a sense of powerlessness. Many countries don't envy the US for much, but they very much do feel and dislike the relative impotence.
Wrong again. Its the arrogance that pisses us off.

The schoolyard bully attitude, that you are the biggest, and therefore everyone should kowtow to you. Not all Americans have this attitude, but those that do irritate the fire out of (a) other Americans, and (b) the rest of the world.
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 01:14 PM
 
Originally posted by moki:
...fighting a more politically correct war to minimize civilian casualties....
Wrong again - You seemed to be fighting a more politically incorrect war to minimize American casualties to ensure minimum loss of votes.
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
f1000  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 02:44 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Interesting numbers, but could you elaborate on how you calculated it?
I ranked the nations according to how much income they could make available for war (a combination of GDP, GDP(PPP)/capita, and historical precedents).

Prof. Paul Kennedy made a similar analysis in his The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, in which he points out that the U.S. brutally out-produced the Japanese during World War II; the U.S. would have won the war whether or not it lost any particular battles. http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Wars between economically disparate countries are usually decided before theyíre even fought. Current standing armies donít mean much in the long-term; itís sustained war-fighting ability that counts. Many European countries donít have large standing armies anymore because they donít need to. That doesnít mean that if a war between, say, Sweden and Sri Lanka broke out, that Sweden couldnít shift its economy into war-fighting mode in a very short time period.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 02:54 PM
 
Originally posted by f1000:
I ranked the nations according to how much income they could make available for war (a combination of GDP, GDP(PPP)/capita, and historical precedents).

Prof. Paul Kennedy made a similar analysis in his The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. As Kennedy pointed out, the U.S. brutally out-produced the Japanese during World War II; the U.S. would have won the war whether or not it lost any particular battles. http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Wars between economically disparate countries are usually decided before theyíre even fought. Current standing armies donít mean much in the long-term; itís sustained war-fighting ability that counts. Many European countries donít have large standing armies anymore because they donít need to. That doesnít mean that if a war between, say, Sweden and Sri Lanka broke out, that Sweden couldnít shift its economy into war-fighting mode in a very short time period.
Good point.

The Nazi's had a method to defeat the British, that could have worked:

They actually searched for Jewish people with the skills necessary to forge the British Pound (which was very well protected in design for it's time). And actually came extremely close to doing so. The objective was to drop money instead of bombs on London. The excessive fake currency would be impossible to destingush from the real currency, sending the British into economic chaios in literally a few weeks. Everyone in Britian would be a billionare, thanks to the Nazi's.

A clever plan, but it never quite got to the point of the drop. If it did, it could have changed the course of the war... remember the British and America had quite a business relationship through the century. So that would have had a signifigant impact on the US economy. And for all the allies. Depending how much was dropped, it could have even caused a depression for allied countries MID WAR!

It was a bloodless solution to a problem that plagued Hitler: Overtaking that Island. The bombing wasn't very successful, and it was slow. This would have been a nice quick solution for him.

A few of the holocaust survivors who were involved are still alive (as of a few years ago), and interviewed for a show or two on it. The Nazi's somehow found the best talent in Europe, and quickly got them working on this plan. Quite a feat that would have been if it succeeded.


That's part of why the US has been working to revamp the currency every few years. And since 9/11, has been investing even more money on better currency. To prevent an economic attack. Remember, we don't use a gold standard anymore. So this has an added complexity to the dollar.
I always use protection when fscking my Mac... Do you?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 03:28 PM
 
I find Logics comments about Iran highly amusing. No muslim or arab country stands a chance against the USA, not even if they all were to band together against the USA. A whole bunch of them can't even kick Israel's butt, something they have tried numerous times before, and Israel is not even on that list.

I understand the list is based on economic potential to wage war, though I still find the list pretty irrelevant in todays world. If one were to put together a more realistic list, a few other factors would have to be considered. Sweden on a militarily powerful list ? LOL. Sweden knows how to bend over and take it up the butt in times of war, something they have proven a few times over. Sweden doesn't even go to war, as they prefer to have Nazi troops ride trains through their country inorder to invade neighboring countries, so I find that list pretty useless and unrealistic.

Also nukes need to be taken into consideration if one were to make a realistic list. What good is a countries economic potential to wage war if some "poorer" country than them nukes the crap out of them ? Their "economic potential" to wage war would be severly limited.

The good thing is, regardless of what kind of list one makes, the USA will still come out on top.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 03:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Actually, their nuclear arsenals are worthless against our missile defense system (you can pretend it doesn't exist if it makes you feel better).
You don't think some nuclear countries could simply switch off half of your missle defence systems if they had a mind to? You know, maybe those nuclear countries where part of your early warning systems are based?

Thanks for the laugh Spliffy.

     
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 03:49 PM
 
Originally posted by Sherwin:
You don't think some nuclear countries could simply switch off half of your missle defence systems if they had a mind to? You know, maybe those nuclear countries where part of your early warning systems are based?

Thanks for the laugh Spliffy.

Don't you think if those early warning systems were cut off, the US would know?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I sent hundreds of followers to their deaths. Then I cut and ran. Now I'm livin' large somewhere in Najaf.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2004, 03:50 PM
 
if The Great Satan had to fight another huge war, like WW2, they'd just increase production and mandate military service.

Millions of soldiers.
Thousands of planes.
Hundreds of warships.
Scores of carriers.
Thousands of missiles.
A whole lot of arse-kickin'.

And Iran, facing total war--not some 'win their hearts and minds' farce--would crumble against massive firepower, annihilation of all defenses, and cut off from international aid and supplies, and quickly bankrupt from a loss of oil revenues.

Iran would capitulate quickly. Any other analysis is fanciful and based on a hatred of the US. Wishing failure does not make it so.
You heard me! Sod off, Sadr!
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:27 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2