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 Most of their military technology is obsolete, too.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.
Learned something. Never knew that Switzerland was even close enough to the top to have ever been considered in this list, regardless of their current status. Dang! Don't mess with those mountaineering financiers!
They get an unrealistic boost for being landlocked due to the algorithm. But... even if they didn't... there's a fairly steep drop off in the latter half of the list.
Doubtful. As embarrassing as their disastrous and criminal escapades in Ukraine have been for them lately, they're still ultimately stronger than the countries near the bottom of the list. But... I wouldn't be surprised at all to see their position revised down.
Rule them out of what? "Winning" the disastrous war that they started in Ukraine? Or being on this list?
I already said that they would not be kicked off the list. Even if their position may, and probably should, be revised downward... which... maybe wouldn't even require any special exceptions or adjustments to the algorithm that GFP uses to generate the list if you consider the staggering number of losses Russia has suffered in terms of equipment and personnel... simply adjusting the stats and reapplying the algorithm would do that.
As for their campaign of war crimes in Ukraine... I don't know what you count as a "win" for them, especially given that their starting objective was to take over Kyiv within a couple of weeks and dominate the entire country probably within a month, installing some kind of obedient Russian puppet government there that would agree to recognize Russian annexation of Crimea and "independence" of Russian puppet states in the Donbass...
... and that obviously is not going to happen and even Russia apparently has totally given up on those objectives. At this point... if they even manage to hold Crimea in the long run I think a lot of people would call that a "win," but they could have potentially done that even before invading and were arguably in a stronger position to do so back then. (some speculate that their hold on Crimea was slipping and untenable long-term and that this was the entire reason they invaded in the first place, to try and make a "land bridge" across the Donbass to better supply and fortify Crimea)
No idea where you're getting your information about stagnant territory movements (with Russians retreating all over the place lately, even from territory Moscow claims to have annexed), or the casualties being "generally even" (with Russian losses recently eclipsing 90,000, according to non-Russian media). Ukraine obviously has the momentum currently and Russia has been thoroughly humiliated.
As to whether or not Putin's hundred of thousands of conscripted elders with rheumatism, prisoners, and various ethnic minorities that hate him are enough to turn the tide and maybe allow Russia to hold on to *some* territory or even negotiate a peaceful settlement that allows them to gain something, save face, and call it a "win"... remains to be seen.
But there's no way anyone being serious could call this anything other than a complete and total disaster for Russia the likes of which the world has rarely even seen before. Hard to think of anything at all recent that was even comparable. Going back into history there are more examples... Agincourt... Thermopylae... The Battle of Britain... the Russo-Japanese War, or perhaps the American Revolution. But even if Russia carves out some kind of victory after everything else that has happened, this will still go down as one of biggest muck-ups in military history, with one side getting absolutely spanked by an inferior enemy.
Further... it's quite possible... and personally I hope that we'll come to see this happen... that Putin's totally wrong-headed attack on Ukraine and the global response to it will ultimately usher in the collapse of the Russian state. Let alone a mere loss in the "special military operation" in Ukraine. I'm not saying that this is definitely going to happen... but... with Russian men fleeing and dying in record numbers, at least 100k will die in Ukraine before the war is over, nearly a million have fled the country to avoid conscription or just to get off what they see as a sinking ship, the brain drain, the global sanctions, and the damage Putin has done to the stability of the ruling political order will all combine to, perhaps, lead to the failure of the Russian Federation. Which would be awful for Russia, obviously, but I think it would be a net positive if the country was broken up into many smaller countries and not allowed to continue threatening world peace and stability.
I honestly think that this quiz should be abolished, and other military rankings based on power. Most people usually base these rankings on how strong they are, meaning equipment, aircraft, artillery, nukes, destroyers, carriers, and more. Although, what most people do not realize on that there is no proof to show that one country is stronger than another or not, because this is all just bias, for example right now russia is getting their butts kicked in ukraine even though they are like ten times stronger or whatever, anything can happen and ukraine can beat them and we’ll never know, so does that mean russias power index go up or down? If not, then prove to me these rankings are not bias, and tell me with actual evidence to change my mind. All this is just telling your country that it is better than another to help think that we are going to win many conflicts. No rankings should ever include these because these are bias and there is no evidence to confirm one country is better.
Italy has 2 (and a third incoming) aircraft carrier that alone place it higher than germany and especially pakistan, + more submarine than germny and the second largest air force of europe.
*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.
I already said that they would not be kicked off the list. Even if their position may, and probably should, be revised downward... which... maybe wouldn't even require any special exceptions or adjustments to the algorithm that GFP uses to generate the list if you consider the staggering number of losses Russia has suffered in terms of equipment and personnel... simply adjusting the stats and reapplying the algorithm would do that.
As for their campaign of war crimes in Ukraine... I don't know what you count as a "win" for them, especially given that their starting objective was to take over Kyiv within a couple of weeks and dominate the entire country probably within a month, installing some kind of obedient Russian puppet government there that would agree to recognize Russian annexation of Crimea and "independence" of Russian puppet states in the Donbass...
No idea where you're getting your information about stagnant territory movements (with Russians retreating all over the place lately, even from territory Moscow claims to have annexed), or the casualties being "generally even" (with Russian losses recently eclipsing 90,000, according to non-Russian media). Ukraine obviously has the momentum currently and Russia has been thoroughly humiliated.
But there's no way anyone being serious could call this anything other than a complete and total disaster for Russia the likes of which the world has rarely even seen before. Hard to think of anything at all recent that was even comparable. Going back into history there are more examples... Agincourt... Thermopylae... The Battle of Britain... the Russo-Japanese War, or perhaps the American Revolution. But even if Russia carves out some kind of victory after everything else that has happened, this will still go down as one of biggest muck-ups in military history, with one side getting absolutely spanked by an inferior enemy.
Amazing quiz!