Hey everyone. Pleasure to be featured as always. Hope you guys enjoy the quiz and if you do, here are a few other similarly-themed quizzes I created you may also enjoy:
I want to be straight with you: Did you get inspiration for these quizzes off Global Firepower.com? I go there a lot, and lots of this information is from there. :)
Another year another update from GFP. Mostly minor shufflings. No major changes at the top of the list. Throughout the bottom ranks the major theme seems to be the sharp rise of some Asian countries and the steady decline of Europe. Spain and Syria have both tumbled off the top 30, making way for Algeria and Singapore. And GFP apparently still hasn't fixed whatever quirk of their algorithm that allows Czech Republic and Switzerland to make the list over North Korea, the UAE, Mexico, or other larger, more powerful countries. It's my hypothesis that they are too generous with the boost they give to landlocked countries for having no navy. But without looking at the algorithm I don't know.
The update this year seems to include an algorithm overhaul that makes the top 30 rankings seem a lot more intuitive and sensible. For instance, Switzerland, Singapore, Ethiopia, and the Czech Republic are all off now, as probably anyone would agree they ought to be; and North Korea is back on, which seems obvious. No more difficult explanations.
I haven't updated this in 2 years. Pending approval I put in the numbers for 2018.
Not really any big changes. North Korea, South Korea, Iran, and Spain all moved up significantly. Other than that there were just minor shufflings and the top 5 remain the same. The only move in to or out of the top 30 was Sweden out, and the Czech Republic back in. This seems unfortunate as it doesn't make sense to rank Czechia higher than Mexico, Sweden, The Netherlands, South Africa or many other nations. I suspect the algorithm is still in need of fixing as mentioned above.
0.2461 compared to 0.2601. Does that mean that America is only a bit more powerful than Russia. I'd have thought they were heaps more. Good quiz anyway!
I'm not entirely sure how the algorithm is calculated. In terms of conventional weaponry, for sure, the USA could clean Russia's clock at this point, even though Russia still has the 2nd best airforce in the world and among the most poweful navies. However, if you look at non-conventional weaponry, Russia still has some 17,000 nuclear warheads sitting around. Enough to destroy the world 5 or 6 times compared to the USA's capability of only destroying the entire world 3 or 4 times. I'm not sure, practically speaking, what difference that makes... but maybe it accounts for the closeness in score.
Oh, minus nukes, air force, drones and tactical missiles I've little doubt the Russians would give the US a good stuffing in a ground war. But of course, this would never happen. Mind you, they seemed to knock off the US pretty easy in that movie, Red Dawn. :)
I never saw Red Dawn, but I thought that it was about North Korea (on paper), even though it was about China (really). Or you're talking about the 1984 film? In 1984 the Soviets and Americans were more or less on equal footing. Now, that's not the case. But....... hard to speculate given the hypothetical parameters you set up. With nukes, Russia has the advantage. With air force, tactical missiles and drones technology, the USA has the advantage. Leave it just to ground forces and the US probably still has an advantage but you would have taken away most of their technological superiority if you eliminate the air force (assuming that you are grouping in air-based weapons from the Navy, Army and Marines along with Air Force), so... in all likelihood it would be a horrific, grinding total war a la WW1 or WW2 wiping out generations of men, with advantage going to the defender if there was one. I know I'm taking your comment too seriously. :)
Obviously, this is just educated guesswork. But yeah, given these limitations the US would still have the technological edge. The Russians the edge in toughness and determination. I'd imagine the Americans would have a lot of initial success but that it would eventually end up in a ground-out war... and that's where the Russians have historically always had the edge. I think it's fair to say the Americans have a poor track record in this sort of war. But anyway, it's just my opinion. You're very obviously welcome to your own.
eh... Americans have done fine at forgetting about Afghanistan which is now the longest war in the nation's history. Of course that's all "over there" so not really present in most Americans' minds. But, the USA has also successfully negotiated World War 1, World War 2, the Revolutionary War, and the American Civil War which were all pretty awful, the last one especially for Americans. Russia weathered attacks from Napoleon and Nazi Germany, but then again they also lost the will to fight in Afghanistan much the same as the US did in Vietnam. I say it's a wash.. and.. like I said before... ultimate advantage goes to the defender.
Now that we've seen how completely and totally incompetent and obsolete the Russian military has become since their invasion of Ukraine, I'd like to amend this to say that, if you took nuclear weapons out of the equation, the US military would absolutely crush the Russians, even with Russia on defense and America invading... their performance in Ukraine has been perhaps the most pathetic in recorded history, or at least since Thermopylae. But probably worse than Thermopylae because the Persians did eventually win that one.
hm... no, not really. Global Firepower ranks them 48th, even with the boost they get for being landlocked (landlocked countries are not penalized for having no navy), they still end up pretty low.
I looked more into the algorithm used by TotalFirepower. As it turns out, they actually do *not* count nuclear weapons when considering the algorithm. So there are other reasons for the closeness in scores between the US and Russia. It's a complicated formula using 40 different data points. Of those, Russia has an edge on the United States in artillery strength (a variety of different kinds) and certain types of naval vessels. Russia's external debt is 1/28 that of the US. It produces more oil than the US but consumes far less than it produces (unlike the US which consumes almost twice what it produces). Russia also has 3x more proven oil reserves. And its a bigger country, though I'm not sure if that's a plus or minus... harder to conquer, but also more difficult to defend.
I gave up when I answered Sweden as a joke and it was there! Country that hasn't been in war since 19th century. Country that has made political decision that they don't even try to keep army that can defense their own country. Nothing against swedish but give me a break.
You realize that this is a top 30 list, right? Not top 5 or top 10. Which country do you believe should take Sweden's place? The Philippines? They're currently ranked 31st. Switzerland? Malaysia? South Africa?
Sweden still has among the finest air forces in the world. I think that alone probably places them in the top 30. Though they have downgraded the size of their airforce in recent years and are near the bottom of this list. Perhaps in a few more years as we see the rising power of Asian countries and a few in Africa, Sweden will be knocked off the list entirely. But for now, honestly, who would you replace them with?
surprises me Vatican is not on here. I mean the pope with his cardinals and highly faithfuls would get gods full support and win everything and they have their own guards hopping around in their fancy suits.
I don't think that god's favor is part of the algorithm used. And while in the past, for sure, the Vatican could field a pretty formidable armed force, these days I don't think they have much in the way of conventional weaponry.
Stalin once supposedly said, when told that Pope Pius XII disapproved of his policies, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" 600 years earlier that would have been a legitimate question. The Papal Army was disbanded in 1870 according to Wikipedia.
This is my theory: GFP doesn't publish their algorithm. But they do say a couple things about it. One thing is that landlocked countries are not "penalized" for not having a navy. It's my opinion that for most countries which are not landlocked this probably means that they are, in effect, heavily penalized for having a coastline. If they are comparing naval strength against some sort of mean, then the fact that America's naval power so *completely* outclasses everyone else, it's just totally embarrassing how weak every other navy in the world is compared to America's (even including countries like Russia and the UK), then I think what happens is that countries that are landlocked in effect get a pretty substantial boost to their ranking. By far the oddest countries to ever show up in the top 30 are Ethiopia, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic. All land-locked countries.
:) ha. but... see... the US Navy is so overpowered they wouldn't even have to. They could park a fleet of aircraft carriers, missile cruisers and nuclear submarines somewhere in the Mediterranean and launch enough tomahawk missiles, tactical nukes, and B2 bomber-delivered bunker busters to turn the Swiss Alps into a valley. And that's true for any land-locked country on Earth. It's not as if navies are only used in amphibious assaults these days.
I completely agree with you here. It seems silly to almost penalise a country for having a coastline. America, with the most powerful navy ever can project its force all over the world. I don't think any other country on its own has that capability.
I don't know. For whatever reason, the website GlobalFirepower chose not to rank them. I'm guessing that if they were ranked they would be about on par with Australia.
update: The Netherlands was recently added to the GFP list of ranked countries and I have removed the caveat. They're currently ranked 32nd in the world.
Why would they be here? Our military is a joke. Ofcourse, we do have some ships and we do have patriotmissiles but that's about it. Gouvernements budget cuts made us lose almost all of our tanks and there's close to none ammunition in stock for let's say training. On paper we have 13 Chinook helicopters but only a few of them actually fly, the others are in parts or maintainance without parts.
A lot of people don't think of Saudi, though as a % of GDP they are the 3rd biggest military spenders in the world, after North Korea and Eritrea. Having lived and worked here for 5 years, though, I'm not sure if that would translate into actual war-making capability if it ever came to it. I wouldn't have much confidence in the people here. I know they conquered one of the largest land empires in history in a very short span of time once upon a time but that was a long time ago.
o.O So surprised about Sweden. People keep saying things like "if we were invaded, we could only hold out for one week". I'm also surprised about Japan; aren't they supposed to not even have a military?
Probably depends on who invades you. If it was the USA, a week might be optimistic. If it was Finland, though, you'd probably be fine.
Regarding Japan, it's actually true that the Japanese constitution prohibits the development of "war potential" and specifically renounces war as a means of settling disputes. The constitution was written by the USA after World War 2. However, starting in 1950 largely in response to developments in Korea, Japan began building up something like a national guard. That has evolved into the Japan Self Defense Force, one of the finest national guard forces in the world. And more recently (last year, in fact), the Japanese government has approved a full-scale rearmament of the country as a way of countering the increased military spending and posturing of China and the continued craziness emanating from North Korea. Not that that decision had any effect on these rankings, but it shows attitudes have slowly been changing since 1945.
I wouldn't underestimate Finland as an opponent, after all Finland was the only country to ward off the attack of the mighty Soviet army. There's also 350 000 reserve soliders in Finland to Sweden's measly 200 000.
I get your point, but if you wanted to pick a weak country easily won, I don't think Finland was the best choice of all Sweden's neighbours. Just saying...
Defending your own territory is a lot different from invading someone else's. I'm sure the Finns are brave enough but if they wanted to invade Sweden, really, the Swedes have nothing to worry about.
It's probably worth noting that of all of these countries, only the United States and Russia really have the capability of projecting significant power all over the world. China and India have significant weight to swing around in their own regions, but are still not significant global powers militarily. The UK and the rest of the top 10 are capable of projecting some more across the world and in their own regions, but not enough at this point to conquer a decent-sized country more than 1,000 miles away or so. The bottom 20 countries on the list are all quite capable of defending themselves against their neighbors- but none of them really have the power necessary to attack any other country that they are not adjacent to. Not in any meaningful way, anyway. With a few odd exceptions most of these countries are only interested in self-defense or at most settling border and trade disputes in their local area.
I just updated it a month ago. But I can do so again when I have time. They made a lot of changes in the last month, much more than in the entire past 18 months combined... maybe they adjusted the algorithm or something. Syria, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic are now in the top 30.. The Netherlands has been ranked finally (#32), and Mexico, North Korea, and Ethiopia have all dropped out of the top 30.
In addition to the precipitous drops of those three countries which fell off the top 30 entirely, there were big declines in the numbers posted by Iran, Sweden, and a few other countries; as well as big gains for the three newcomers to the top 30 already mentioned, and also Turkey, Japan, Canada, Poland, and Australia. China continues to close the gap between itself and Russia, but has not yet surpassed it's comrade to the North. The USA, of course, retains its commanding lead.
Why do Russia and China have a higher power index, but lower ranking than America? The UK has a higher power index than France and India too, but is ranked lower. In fact, the ranking seems to jump around all over the place. How are the rankings calculated?
I don't think that's how it works. I'm guessing that the aim is to make 1.00 the median score, as there are 126 countries on the list, and #62 (Hungary) has a score of 1.0007.
Who is in last place now? Any country come after Vatican City (do Popes get elected on their "commander-in-chief qualifications", I wonder)? They DO have Swiss Guard army (with no nukes, I assume) and are landlocked, though Navy could presumably sail the Tiber.
Of the 126 countries ranked by GFP, the Central African Republic comes in last place. But there are many countries not ranked that don't even have a military.
This really rewards faster typers, because even when I know the answers, it's hard to think and type 10 answers per minute consistently. This is my third try and I keep missing a few. I don't know why the default time of 4 minutes was considered to be too much for 30 answers.
Well... there are 196 answers on the Countries of the World Quiz with a time limit of 12 minutes. That's over 16 answers per minute. This is 30 answers, so if the time limit were 4 minutes that would be 7.5 answers per minute. Most of these answers have one word in them. I think only people who have never seen a keyboard before in their lives type fewer than 10 words per minute.
Forget Indonesia, Vietnam and Taiwan (really??). Surprising, Spain and Ukraine are still here despite crisis and corruption. Also Egypt is shockingly high, since it cannot control own territory.
I understand, military actually leads the state, but i meant their unsuccessful war against IS and other terrorist groups at Sinai Peninsula and around.
fighting a homegrown ideologically-motivated guerilla/terrorist insurgency is next to impossible. Even the United States, by far the most powerful and sophisticated military power in the history of the world, has had only middling success at such endeavors.
I think the lesson of history is that the solutions to such insurgencies are political rather than military. The military can only cut heads off the hydra.
It depends on the resolve of both the insurgents and the established power, how much legitimacy/popularity each have with the populace at large, and also how much brutality the stronger power is willing to or able to exert on the weaker one. Before the contemporary age of democracy and television news media, if an indigenous population was causing you trouble you could just commit wholesale genocide against them and that actually tended to work pretty well.
Well....I guessed everything. Algeria, Taiwan, Thailand,Sweden,Greece,Ukraine... All of these countries that many People would not think of. And then... My only miss was Israel. That's frustrating :D. 29/30
The Israeli military is far more sophisticated but the Egyptian military is larger and the equation also factors in demographic information. In addition, Egypt and Israel have had a peace treaty in effect since 1979. If Israel had to fight off the same coalition of countries today as they were able to defeat in 1948, it's very likely that things would go a different way.
I've worked full-time in Virginia, California, Seoul, Riyadh, and Dammam. I had a residence in Bahrain when I was working in Dammam. I went to South Korea and Saudi Arabia specifically for jobs I had accepted. I've lived and visited many other places but the rest of those places I was there just because I wanted to be, though sometimes I would do a bit of work here and there.
As far as I'm aware, there's been an update in the GlobalFirepower index. I don't like it, because the UK has slipped down the rankings, but it's happened...
Looks like there hasn't been any changes to the countries included in the top 30, just a bit of shuffling up and down within their ranks. I'll probably hold off updating until next year. They still haven't fixed the stupidity of the algorithm that boosts the Czech Republic so high.
There has been a lot of investment in capability by the Czech government in recent years. They’ve dropped down to 41 now, I believe this is because they’re in a transitional phase of modernisation. They remain a relatively big producer of armaments, and have been historically. Up until 2004, they had cumpulsory military service, so would have ranked even higher then. I wouldn’t be too inclined to underestimate the Czechs, I think that they’d punch well above their weight, if push came to shove.
I forgot Germany??? Hahahaha! I'm honestly surprised that some of the biggest drug-running countries such as Colombia from South America didn't make the list... surely they have the armaments?
As I said back in the day, I still have my serious doubts about the algorithm. I don't believe the USA, Russia and China are anywhere near that close. Russia and China to each other, sure, but neither or them are even close to the US. Take aircraft carriers and force projection more generally, for example - the US has a clear advantage over both combined. Indeed I have little doubt that, though it wouldn't be easy, quick or bloodless, the USA could take both the Russian Federation and the PRC together. On the other hand, it seems about right that there's such a big jump from the top three to fourth. I doubt India could at present pose much of a threat to China, though they do have a quality navy.
The algorithm only factors conventional weaponry, so nukes are not included. It also takes into consideration things like economic power, natural resources, geography, etc. North Korea has an anemic economy, it can't feed its own people day to day, it has no oil or anything like that. It's a house of cards that would collapse without outside support. Most of their military technology is obsolete, too. But they do have a lot of jets, a lot of submarines, a lot of artillery, and a very large army... so they make the list.
Not to mention the fact that, what nukes they may possess have probably been cobbled together with bits of old milk cartons, empty aluminium cans and some sticky tape. They’d probably go off in one of their faces, like your drunk uncle messing about at a home firework display.
Hey @Kal, do you know why the source info chooses to exclude nukes etc.? If I was a megalomaniac dictator thinking of invading someone else, that’s probably one of the most important factors affecting my decision.
I don't know but I assume it's because the widespread use of nukes would render conventional weaponry pointless and would be a civilization-ended event where nobody won. And, knowing this, most governments and world leaders with an IQ in triple digits are extremely reluctant to use nuclear weapons for any reason, making them basically very expensive very dangerous paperweights in the majority of scenarios.
Interesting. I would still assume they would have a huge deterrent effect if nothing else. To me that would be worth more than a couple of hundred tanks, for example, but I guess it’s tricky to decide exactly what weight to give to nukes. Still seems a slightly strange omission to me, but sure. An interesting quiz regardless.
I didn't do the update but looks like South Africa and Switzerland are new. Don't remember who was at the bottom before. I think Sweden, the Czech Republic, Ethiopia, Singapore, and the UAE were on some previous iterations.
I would love to see a quiz that divides these power numbers by the area or population of the countries... small countries with strong militaries. I'd imagine Israel would be very high up there.
I haven't looked at the page's methodology in a while, but I'm guessing that this is another quirk of the algorithm they use which grants an absurd boost to landlocked countries, since they are not penalized for having no navy. Theoretically this should be neutral, giving them neither an advantage nor disadvantage over other countries with a coastline that do have navies; but I think that in practice the fact that the USA's navy so completely dwarfs every other country in the world's makes things a bit janky, and so any country with access to a sea, even if they have the *2nd* largest navy in the world, is automatically at a disadvantage (in terms of the algorithm) versus any country that does not. That's my best guess. ::shrug::
Fortunately, for whatever reason, landlocked countries tend to have very poor militaries, and so this weakness in the algorithm doesn't affect this quiz very much. Only one landlocked country cracks the top 20 this year. But in the past, the other strangest members of the top 20 (Ethiopia and the Czech Republic) were also landlocked. So I'm pretty sure it's the same thing happening in each case.
Egypt is a bit weird. Not a huge surprise and I totally expected it to be on here, but it's kinda an outlier in the top 10 among other countries that are mostly either very developed, very populous, or both.
I don't see it that way. Apart from North Korea, pretty much every country in the world that spends an exorbitant amount of money, as a percentage of GDP, on their military is in or around the Middle East. And this goes back decades. Egypt, being at the heart of many of those historical Middles Eastern conflicts going back to the dawn of civilization, being in the recent past by far the most advanced, most prosperous, most culturally significant Arab Muslim nation in the world (before the big Arabian oil boom), and presently still the most populous Arab country in the world and one that is heavily militarized and essentially controlled by a military dictatorship... seems to belong in my eyes.
Suppose that makes sense. I don't know much about modern Egyptian history, but based on what I do know, the military has always played a pretty important and powerful role. Plus, France and the UK have significantly smaller populations and arguably less of a need for a strong military than Egypt.
Yet another quiz in which knowing the most populous and economically prosperous countries serves as a quasi-proxy for knowing what the quiz is actually about.
I may look into it. I think QM started updating this one automatically. But it might be on a 1 or 2 year timer I don't know how it works when he does that.
Canadry recently became the 4th person on my block list, because he's a troll and QM won't allow me to respond to him accordingly. I would summarize what he had contributed to the conversation, but, he has contributed nothing.
One of the biggest upsets in military history. A lot of contributing factors, including many things that don't factor in to the Global Firepower algorithm.
This rather backs up what you previously said about nukes being little more than expensive paperweights, since Russia could obviously ‘win’ by firing them at major cities and forcing submission, but even Tsar Vladimir knows that he just can’t do that.
I suspect that this measure is rated as a better one than most because of the of the sheer number of variables it accounts for, from an impressive set of data. It’s clearly one of the best as a quantitative analysis, but therein lies its inherent and unavoidable flaw: in the real world, there are far too many variables which can’t be quantified and fed into algorithms. For example, how could they quantify the UK’s relative advantage over France as an island; or, how much advantage does Switzerland gain by being surrounded by Alps? What role does morale play in conflict, or home advantage? Relative competence/experience amongst the general staff? Some things, you just can’t assign a number to.
Countries by Air Force Strength
Countries by Active Military Reserve Strength
Countries by Military Expenditures (as a % of GDP)
Longest Lasting Empires
Countries by Debt to GDP Ratio
Enjoy and if you do, subscribe to get updates on new quizzes by clicking the link next to my name above.
Cheers, all, and mind the Predator drones.
If you're referring to the linked quizzes above, 2 used GFP as a source, 2 use Wikipedia, and 1 uses the SIPRI database and also references Wikipedia.
Not really any big changes. North Korea, South Korea, Iran, and Spain all moved up significantly. Other than that there were just minor shufflings and the top 5 remain the same. The only move in to or out of the top 30 was Sweden out, and the Czech Republic back in. This seems unfortunate as it doesn't make sense to rank Czechia higher than Mexico, Sweden, The Netherlands, South Africa or many other nations. I suspect the algorithm is still in need of fixing as mentioned above.
Afghanistan, isnt it a very powerful military force
Sweden still has among the finest air forces in the world. I think that alone probably places them in the top 30. Though they have downgraded the size of their airforce in recent years and are near the bottom of this list. Perhaps in a few more years as we see the rising power of Asian countries and a few in Africa, Sweden will be knocked off the list entirely. But for now, honestly, who would you replace them with?
This is my theory: GFP doesn't publish their algorithm. But they do say a couple things about it. One thing is that landlocked countries are not "penalized" for not having a navy. It's my opinion that for most countries which are not landlocked this probably means that they are, in effect, heavily penalized for having a coastline. If they are comparing naval strength against some sort of mean, then the fact that America's naval power so *completely* outclasses everyone else, it's just totally embarrassing how weak every other navy in the world is compared to America's (even including countries like Russia and the UK), then I think what happens is that countries that are landlocked in effect get a pretty substantial boost to their ranking. By far the oddest countries to ever show up in the top 30 are Ethiopia, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic. All land-locked countries.
It sucks to be a North Korean
Regarding Japan, it's actually true that the Japanese constitution prohibits the development of "war potential" and specifically renounces war as a means of settling disputes. The constitution was written by the USA after World War 2. However, starting in 1950 largely in response to developments in Korea, Japan began building up something like a national guard. That has evolved into the Japan Self Defense Force, one of the finest national guard forces in the world. And more recently (last year, in fact), the Japanese government has approved a full-scale rearmament of the country as a way of countering the increased military spending and posturing of China and the continued craziness emanating from North Korea. Not that that decision had any effect on these rankings, but it shows attitudes have slowly been changing since 1945.
I get your point, but if you wanted to pick a weak country easily won, I don't think Finland was the best choice of all Sweden's neighbours. Just saying...
http://globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
In addition to the precipitous drops of those three countries which fell off the top 30 entirely, there were big declines in the numbers posted by Iran, Sweden, and a few other countries; as well as big gains for the three newcomers to the top 30 already mentioned, and also Turkey, Japan, Canada, Poland, and Australia. China continues to close the gap between itself and Russia, but has not yet surpassed it's comrade to the North. The USA, of course, retains its commanding lead.
try my Andorra quiz here.
http://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/178909/andorra-a-z
Drop that hundo!!!
I even guessed Taiwan, ahah!
*sad British noises*
I suspect that this measure is rated as a better one than most because of the of the sheer number of variables it accounts for, from an impressive set of data. It’s clearly one of the best as a quantitative analysis, but therein lies its inherent and unavoidable flaw: in the real world, there are far too many variables which can’t be quantified and fed into algorithms. For example, how could they quantify the UK’s relative advantage over France as an island; or, how much advantage does Switzerland gain by being surrounded by Alps? What role does morale play in conflict, or home advantage? Relative competence/experience amongst the general staff? Some things, you just can’t assign a number to.