Faction Check

When I'm playing EB or MTW2, I like to keep an eye on factions that are bulking up. Don't wanna get caught by a zerg rush with nothing but spear militia, ya know?

Thankfully, FP has done a real-world analysis for us. Thanks, guys!

The List: The World’s Biggest Military Buildups

Since the end of the Cold War, most of the world’s militaries have downsized. But in recent years, a few countries have been bulking up. In this week’s List, FP takes a look at the countries that are going large while everyone else is slimming down.

People’s Republic of China

Annual military budget: $103.9 billion (2005 estimate)

What they’re spending on: Weapons and military technology. Between 2002 and 2006, China purchased over $14.6 billion in arms. Between 2001 and 2005, China increased its annual military budget by nearly 126 percent. In addition to buying a few destroyers and submarines from Russia, China has also been developing its own nuclear-powered submarines that can fire off nuclear ballistic missiles. At its current rate of military expansion, China could have the world’s largest navy by 2020. Earlier this year, the Chinese also performed an unannounced test of a new antisatellite missile that drew fierce criticism from the United States and the international community.

What to watch: Boots on the ground. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA), with 2.25 million active-duty members, is the largest army in the world. But as large as its active-duty forces are, the Chinese military has decreased in size in the past two decades by more than 1.6 million soldiers. The reduction has allowed the Chinese military to use its increased budget to focus on training, leaving the force smaller and more professional.

Why it matters: The Taiwan Strait. China is determined to use its new wealth to modernize its armed forces, and a possible battle with the United States over Taiwan is the main motivating factor.

United States of America

Annual military budget: $481.4 billion (FY 2008 estimate)

What they’re spending on: Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have cost U.S. taxpayers about $610 billion since Sept. 11, 2001. Then there are global antiterrorism measures, missile shields, personnel expenditures, and advanced defense technologies such as the next-generation aircraft carrier and unmanned aerial vehicles. The result: U.S. defense spending increased 54 percent this year over 2001—excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What to watch: Emergency spending and plans to grow the Army. Since the war on terror began, emergency supplemental packages have been tacked on to normal defense spending, putting vast expenses beyond normal congressional review. Just this year, President George W. Bush requested nearly $200 billion extra for Iraq and Afghanistan through next year—on top of the normal defense budget of $481.4 billion. There are also plans in the works for increasing the size of the U.S. Army by 74,000 soldiers by 2010, a project estimated to require an additional $2.6 billion per year.

Why it matters: Overextension. Iraq and Afghanistan are straining the U.S. military’s global operations. Increased funding and more troops is the only way the United States can maintain its forces in the “global war on terrorism” while still preparing conventional defenses against potential future adversaries.

Republic of South Africa

Annual military budget: $3.69 billion (2005 estimate)

What they’re spending on: Weapons and military readiness. The military budget increased 102 percent between 2001 and 2005, mainly for arms and other military equipment. The country spent virtually nothing on imported arms in 2003 and 2004, but it acquired $315 million worth of weapons and equipment in 2005 and a further $862 million in 2006. South Africa has also gotten help from the United States in the form of technical training assistance, funds for aircraft parts, and military medical training.

What to watch: Peacekeeping. The African Union has plans for five regional rapid deployment forces ready for use by 2010, and South Africa is spearheading the effort with a unit that could involve as many as 10,000 soldiers. South African peacekeepers are currently deployed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and Darfur.

Why it matters: Regional stability. As befits sub-Saharan Africa’s largest economy, South Africa wants to be the military powerhouse of the region. However, a 2002 report revealed that only 3,000 of the country’s 76,000 active-duty soldiers could be deployed for combat operations due to inadequate equipment and the fact that as many as 60 percent of the country’s soldiers could be infected with HIV.

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Annual military budget: $1.67 billion (2005 estimate)

What they’re spending on: AKs. Venezuela’s international arms purchases jumped from an estimated $71 million between 2002 and 2004 to more than $4 billion between 2005 and 2007, expenditures not counted in the official budget numbers. Venezuela purchased 100,000 Kalashnikovs from Russia last year, along with 24 fighter jets and 35 helicopters. And a new Kalashnikov factory in Aragua state, capable of producing as many as 30,000 automatic rifles a year, is scheduled to be completed by 2010.

What to watch: The militias. Although President Hugo Chávez has not increased the country’s overall active troop strength, he has founded two public militia groups in addition to the country’s regular National Reserve: the Francisco de Miranda Front (FFM) in 2003 and the Territorial Guard in 2005. As of mid-2006, the FFM had around 10,000 members and the National Reserve and Territorial Guard together were around 2 million strong. Combined, this “people’s army” is officially meant to defend against such unlikely events as an attempted invasion by the United States, which Chávez claims is imminent. Critics say the groups are being used to suppress internal dissent, however.

Why it matters: It could destabilize neighboring countries. Chávez isn’t just arming people in his own country; he’s also giving aid and arms to “revolutionary” groups in Colombia. Analysts worry that weapons from Venezuela will make their way over the border to leftist FARC rebels in that country. Chávez also has close ties to Evo Morales. In May 2006, the Bolivian president agreed to construct as many as 24 new military bases in Bolivia with Venezuelan assistance—despite objections from Chile, Paraguay, and Peru.

Republic of India

Annual military budget: $21.7 billion (2005)

What they’re spending on: Everything. India is the world’s No. 2 arms importer after China, shelling out more than $10 billion on arms imports between 2002 and 2006. Its defense spending has jumped 53 percent since 2001.

What to watch: Its reserve forces. In addition to the country’s 1.3 million active troops, India has more than doubled its reserves since 2001 to 1.1 million additional soldiers.

Why it matters: It’s a sign of intentions. With growing threats of instability in neighboring Pakistan, a continuing conflict in Kashmir, and military modernization in China, not to mention a simmering Maoist insurgency, India may just be responding to what it sees as gathering dangers. Expect greater defense spending and international arms purchases in the future.

Interesting read, thanks for sharing that Lemur. :2thumbsup:

Very good read. Thank you, I enjoyed the effective and complete analysis.

I dislike the Chinese expenditures, since they are only trying to conquer an island nation

The Venezuelan expenditure was absurd, trying to prevent a United States expenditure. I find the latter assessment more effective.

It's to bad they are in the pocket of the Octosquid Alliance (you don't hear anything about them, do you?)

Oh NOES! ParthiaChina is really building their military. Quickly, pull back and cover the rear!
Very, very informative, Lemur. Quite the good read.

Interesting article, but why are South Africa and Venezuela even on that list, they have 100 times less budget than USA, and 25 times smaller than China... Only USA and China have anything worth worrying about, possibly India too. But another interesting aspect that is also forgotten above is the future potential capability of defense spending. Western Europe could probably theoretically increase its military budget maybe 10 times for instance... And perhaps China could too... Who knows where the real danger are? And it also doesn't take into account North Korea's nukes, which makes them a greater danger even if they don't spend as much on regular weaponry.

Why should we care? Only one of these countries are on the map, and we won't see them until very late, so we should be in full control of europe and with a massive army when we encounter them.

This may change in empires though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Interesting article, but why are South Africa and Venezuela even on that list, they have 100 times less budget than USA, and 25 times smaller than China... Only USA and China have anything worth worrying about, possibly India too. But another interesting aspect that is also forgotten above is the future potential capability of defense spending. Western Europe could probably theoretically increase its military budget maybe 10 times for instance... And perhaps China could too... Who knows where the real danger are? And it also doesn't take into account North Korea's nukes, which makes them a greater danger even if they don't spend as much on regular weaponry.

---

It isnt how much they are spending, it is how much they are spending in relation to surrounding countries. China is a major threat for obvious reasons. At the moment, neighboring nations are also spending massive amounts of money on arms. This gives us both concern and solace as China can be contained regionally but are still creating an arms race that could lead to something terrible for everybody.

Venezuela is scary because their expenditures contrast with the low amounts of other South American nations. Coupled with his obvious agenda to revolutionize the continent and destabilize surrounding centrist or right wing governments, a relatively vast military plan is a very bad thing for regional stability. I think surrounding nations are starting to see this. It seems to me that Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador are forging some sort of military alliance while aggressively undermining government in places like Columbia, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

[...] europe [...] massive army[...]

---

So you think we should become states of the USA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Interesting article, but why are South Africa and Venezuela even on that list, they have 100 times less budget than USA, and 25 times smaller than China... Only USA and China have anything worth worrying about, possibly India too. But another interesting aspect that is also forgotten above is the future potential capability of defense spending. Western Europe could probably theoretically increase its military budget maybe 10 times for instance... And perhaps China could too... Who knows where the real danger are? And it also doesn't take into account North Korea's nukes, which makes them a greater danger even if they don't spend as much on regular weaponry.

---

My dear boy if you're worried about US intentions toward Europe be aware that we already have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Their presence is the reason why Europe doesn't increase it's defense budget 10 fold. That's assuming they could if they wanted to. Look at what the Brits are doing to their armed forces. It's a shame to see the royal navy in such poor shape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Their presence is the reason why Europe doesn't increase it's defense budget 10 fold.

---

Nah, the reason why we don't prioritize our military budgets is that the possibility of a european continental war these days is around 0...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Nah, the reason why we don't prioritize our military budgets is that the possibility of a european continental war these days is around 0...

---

I seriously hope so. However lack of an effective fighting force reduces your credibility and opens you up for coercion. Russia doesn't have to invade to get what it wants, only make threatening moves with their armed forces and tighten fuel supplies. The politicians, knowing there's nothing they can do in a worst case scenario, will likely ack-que-es (damnit! someone please help me with that word). You’ll loose the war without a shot being fired or even knowing it occurred. If you’re unable to project power, or have someone do it on your behalf, you’ll be taken advantage of.

The world isn’t as peaceful and sophisticated as Europe thinks it is. The main reason women don’t like “nice guys” is the same, even if they don’t fully realize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I seriously hope so. However lack of an effective fighting force reduces your credibility and opens you up for coercion. Russia doesn't have to invade to get what it wants, only make threatening moves with their armed forces and tighten fuel supplies. The politicians, knowing there's nothing they can do in a worst case scenario, will likely ack-que-es (damnit! someone please help me with that word). You’ll loose the war without a shot being fired or even knowing it occurred. If you’re unable to project power, or have someone do it on your behalf, you’ll be taken advantage of.

The world isn’t as peaceful and sophisticated as Europe thinks it is. The main reason women don’t like “nice guys” is the same, even if they don’t fully realize it.

---

acquiesce.

I agree. Especially on the points about Europe and women.

The way this article is written is very US centric I think, or at least with US foreign policy in mind.
The expenditure of other countries is more or less indirectly ridiculed and portrayed as dangerous, unnecessary and threatening, while the US spending is shown in a more neutral, if not slightly positive, light.

Also, what's the active duty and reserve count for the US armed forces (all of the different military types you guys got, like army, navy and what-not). The article is omitting that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

The way this article is written is very US centric I think, or at least with US foreign policy in mind.
The expenditure of other countries is more or less indirectly ridiculed and portrayed as dangerous, unnecessary and threatening, while the US spending is shown in a more neutral, if not slightly positive, light.

Also, what's the active duty and reserve count for the US armed forces (all of the different military types you guys got, like army, navy and what-not). The article is omitting that.

---

The article is omitting quite a bit of info.
They don't include the "Defense Forces" of Japan and they leave out how much the nations are really spending. Only what they report spending.

It is a readers digest-esque review anyway.

Broken down and accurate reviews can be found at www.globalsecurity.org and the like. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/index.html

China can try a rush, but it'll take far more than a 6 of theirs to beat one of our super soldiers.

Why can't the world be more like Europe? The only true free country on Earth, where we are happy and peaceful because we realised how stupid it is to go around blowing each other up.

And yes, i consider Europe more of a country than a continent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I seriously hope so. However lack of an effective fighting force reduces your credibility and opens you up for coercion. Russia doesn't have to invade to get what it wants, only make threatening moves with their armed forces and tighten fuel supplies. The politicians, knowing there's nothing they can do in a worst case scenario, will likely ack-que-es (damnit! someone please help me with that word). You’ll loose the war without a shot being fired or even knowing it occurred. If you’re unable to project power, or have someone do it on your behalf, you’ll be taken advantage of.

The world isn’t as peaceful and sophisticated as Europe thinks it is. The main reason women don’t like “nice guys” is the same, even if they don’t fully realize it.

---

So we're russian puppets and I will never get laid? :help: :end:
What do I have to do, kill you twice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

My dear boy if you're worried about US intentions toward Europe be aware that we already have tens of thousands of troops stationed there.

---

No, but the OP focused on countries that had a potential to be dangerous given a change of foreign policy for the worse. The USA is clearly the most dangerous country in the world in that aspect. Especially as its democracy has been pushed into a deadlocked two-party situation from which it shows no signs of being able to recover from. For now, the American offensive warfare seems to be limited enough and enough disliked by the people that at the moment there's not too much reason to fear the American intentions, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Their presence is the reason why Europe doesn't increase it's defense budget 10 fold.

---

These troops aren't there to prevent Western Europe from increasing its budget, if that's what you mean. They're there to prevent Russia from increasing their troops too much, and are there because Western Europe agrees to it, because they support this. Bush wouldn't have much support for trying to keep them there by force if the Western European countries were to ask them to leave, for instance, but nobody here will ask them to leave because they're good protection against instability and arms race with Russia - a danger which still hasn't been completely eliminated - and because there are signed treaties, which the countries here don't like to break. If these troops were to be unable to prevent a major Russian increase, then it would neither be in their interest, nor within their capability, to prevent Western Europe from increasing too. So it's only indirectly that they prevent increase of Western European forces. The way you put it sounds pretty arrogant IMHO. It's a quid pro quo situation and a number of treaties, no more and no less. Western Europe save money they would otherwise invest in the military budget, whereas the USA, by paying, can prevent both Russia and Western Europe from at all coming close to challenging their military power, thus giving them greater freedom to do what they want in their foreign policy. Given the ideologies of both sides, this is a win-win situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

That's assuming they could if they wanted to. Look at what the Brits are doing to their armed forces. It's a shame to see the royal navy in such poor shape.

---

The USA is pressured closer to its limits than the British in that aspect, I think. Western European health care and social security that is partly payed by tax money means less money for the military budget. The British budget is going to fund social security and immigration. If they cut the immigration and cut the social security in an emergency, they have a potential for massive increase over a few years, like most other West European countries, for instance if we would get a rise of Imperialism in any country in Europe. But they won't do that increase otherwise, since they value social security higher when there's simply no need for a larger army at the moment, and that it's fashionable with massive immigration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I seriously hope so. However lack of an effective fighting force reduces your credibility and opens you up for coercion. Russia doesn't have to invade to get what it wants, only make threatening moves with their armed forces and tighten fuel supplies. The politicians, knowing there's nothing they can do in a worst case scenario, will likely ack-que-es (damnit! someone please help me with that word). You’ll loose the war without a shot being fired or even knowing it occurred. If you’re unable to project power, or have someone do it on your behalf, you’ll be taken advantage of.

---

You've got a pretty incorrect view of Europe my friend! Russia isn't forcing much upon any country in Western Europe these days.

Having strength isn't the best way to avoid being taken advantage of. You can be taken advantage of well even if you're ten times stronger. If you don't realize that, my friend, you're in very great danger of ending up being taken advantage of by your wife/future wife. The most important thing to avoid being taken advantage of is to be able to make clear to the opponent that they will gain more by being cooperative than with being aggressive. A Russian imperialism in Europe would fail miserably because of many reasons:
1. Russian morale on offensive is not known to be good
2. Russian internal problems are too big at the moment
3. Western Europe would unite more or less, and their combined might would easily defeat an offensive Russia
4. Western Europe isn't threatening to invade Russia. Russia thus has little incentive to strive for increased strength and decisively weakening neighboring countries, since they have little intentions of attempting to invade Russia.
This means that the Western European worst case scenario is exactly the same as the worst case for the Russians. Not to mention that if Russia were to go to war with Western European countries there would be a potential war between two nuclear weapon owning countries, which would create a huge risk of global nuclear war. Nobody will benefit - even a victory (if any such concept exists in nuclear war) would be so Pyrrhic that you would gain more by lining up half your population and shooting them instead of going to war.

Clever diplomacy is about establishing incentives to cooperate rather than fight. Fighting is only one means of achieving this scenario. If someone believes you're afraid of taking a fight when it is necessary to illustrate the point that ignoring basic moral values, then fighting becomes necessary, but only if the ways they try to take advantage of you are more damaging in the long term than a war would be. This is why imperialists are usually allowed to make some grabs first, before they get to face the combined might of a major, serious coalition. And this tolerance of everyone allowing everyone to step a few millimeters over the line is also what creates the buffer zone between screwing and being screwed that enable peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The world isn’t as peaceful and sophisticated as Europe thinks it is. The main reason women don’t like “nice guys” is the same, even if they don’t fully realize it.

---

Women don't like brutes who think their strength alone will save them, and is the only solution to problems. Some more primitive among them care a lot about resources in their judgement, but if they're above reptiles in cleverness, then this judgement of resources also includes ability to flee, and ability to think cleverly.

A nice proverb: "In a light breeze, the thin tree bends much, the thick, strong tree bends little. In a storm, the thin tree still bend much, but the thick, strong tree breaks".

The only women that like non-nice guys are uncertain women who start liking these brutes because they don't dare to show appreciation for men who create peace, stability and order, and are more valuable than the brutes since they can both secure their own survival and help the entire rest of the herd, the common good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The world isn’t as peaceful and sophisticated as Europe thinks it is. The main reason women don’t like “nice guys” is the same, even if they don’t fully realize it.

---

You're absolutely right. We should stop focusing on being so nice, realize the world is bad place and act from that.

Also, thank you, now I know never to treat a woman nicely in my life:2thumbsup:

What a coincidence, Innocentius, you have only two more posts left until your postcount becomes evil! :rolleyes: ~:) :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I seriously hope so. However lack of an effective fighting force reduces your credibility and opens you up for coercion. Russia doesn't have to invade to get what it wants, only make threatening moves with their armed forces and tighten fuel supplies. The politicians, knowing there's nothing they can do in a worst case scenario, will likely ack-que-es (damnit! someone please help me with that word). You’ll loose the war without a shot being fired or even knowing it occurred. If you’re unable to project power, or have someone do it on your behalf, you’ll be taken advantage of.

The world isn’t as peaceful and sophisticated as Europe thinks it is. The main reason women don’t like “nice guys” is the same, even if they don’t fully realize it.

---

Yes, Russia would be the main threat. However, as things stands now, they're only able to use their power against the tiny ex-soviet states like Georgia. The rest of europe doesn't depend on russia for anything, so they don't really have anything to use against us. What do we care if Russia stops producing oil? We've got our own oil, if russia stops it means higher prices and more money to us...

In an economic war, there's no doubt the EU would come out on top. Russia needs us a lot more than we need them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So we're russian puppets and I will never get laid? :help: :end:
What do I have to do, kill you twice?

---

Huh, I hadn't thought of it that way. I'm sure Sun Tzu would have something to say on that.

Anyway, good thread. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Nah, the reason why we don't prioritize our military budgets is that the possibility of a european continental war these days is around 0...

---

'For peace, prepare for war.'

With Russia resurgent, I wouldn't rest on my laurels.

I would be worried about Denial of Service and other such threats to the financial markets first though.

What of Western Europe responding to a Russian attack on Georgia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

What of Western Europe responding to a Russian attack on Georgia?

---

Georgia is all the way over there in the nobody cares zone...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

What of Western Europe responding to a Russian attack on Georgia?

---

What Russian attack? If there was to be an attack on Georgia, the europeans reaction would be... moderate, at most. Two years ago, after the revolution in Georgia, europe backed Saakachvili. But the later's behaviour towards independant press and political opposition since then has been really Putin-like. And his management of georgian economy... familly and friends above all.

So the only ally remaining for Georgia is the US, a superpower that sees no problem being allied with dictators and authoritarian regimes.