Org Mobile Site
While i was enjoying myself reading certain thread that is currently closed i stumbled upon a certain list which some of you might find interesting. In the thread i mentioned before a certain well known member of our small internet community expressed his concerns about how Europeans are basically helpless in face of any real threats. So i leaned back and thought what might be a good indicator for such complex issue of populations capability of waging war and even more important their willingness, which that certain member was so vehemently worried about. Well i decided to do a little search and i found a really nice indicator, if we generalize things to extremes:
military personnel/ population ratio.
So basically how many military personnel Country has compared to how many people they have. Then i stumbled into an interesting list,here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mber_of_troops
And what i see? When you look at certain larger North American country and find their place from the total of military personnel per 1000 people, strange thing happened. The country was on the 71st place when you look at how many people actually have military training out of 1000 people. Ultra militaristic European countries like: Finland 11th, Bulgaria 15th, Creece 20th, Switzerland 21st, Estonia 23rd, Portugal 24th, Sweden 25th, Austria 26th, Montenegro 33rd, Moldova 36th, Norway 40th, Denmark 41st, Spain 49th, Serbia 55th, Croatia 60th, Romania 62nd, Hungary 65th, Lithuania 67th and Italy at 70th place, have more military trained people compared to whole population then.....I am sure you already guessed? Yes: The United States of America. So should we now start worrying that the population of USA has lost their war like Nature and might be heading towards certain doom as their warrior spirit and willingness to serve their country has faded?
military personnel/ population ratio.
So basically how many military personnel Country has compared to how many people they have. Then i stumbled into an interesting list,here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mber_of_troops
And what i see? When you look at certain larger North American country and find their place from the total of military personnel per 1000 people, strange thing happened. The country was on the 71st place when you look at how many people actually have military training out of 1000 people. Ultra militaristic European countries like: Finland 11th, Bulgaria 15th, Creece 20th, Switzerland 21st, Estonia 23rd, Portugal 24th, Sweden 25th, Austria 26th, Montenegro 33rd, Moldova 36th, Norway 40th, Denmark 41st, Spain 49th, Serbia 55th, Croatia 60th, Romania 62nd, Hungary 65th, Lithuania 67th and Italy at 70th place, have more military trained people compared to whole population then.....I am sure you already guessed? Yes: The United States of America. So should we now start worrying that the population of USA has lost their war like Nature and might be heading towards certain doom as their warrior spirit and willingness to serve their country has faded?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The sinews of war are infinite money - Marcus Tullius Cicero
The US used to be full of men who were ideal to the ways of war, and the only thing that could hold the US military back was a lack of funding or good military technology.
The problem with the US military TODAY is not its' lack of funding or sophisticated weaponry, but the lack of good citizens, and therefore the lack of effective fighting men available to them. The rest of the world (most Western European countries, most Asian countries, most South American countries, and most Eastern European countries, and many African countries) has no shortage of able bodied and minded men who have been raised in a culture that produces good citizens and good soldiers.
The sinews of war are not gold, but good soldiers - Niccolò Machiavelli
It will be the countries who have both the good citizens/soldiers AND the economy to support large scale organized warfare that will shape the future of the world. Wealthy countries with no means of guarding their wealth will simply be juicy prizes for those countries who have BOTH the elements needed to be great. The US will simply be a fatted duck for Russia, China, India, the EU, etc to fight over.
That is my take on the military situation of the US. The world always tends toward disorder, and the longer countries exist, the more corrupt they will become. The more corrupt countries are, the larger a chance for war. If history has shown one thing, it is that humans will ALWAYS go to war with each other. Everytime they devise a way to avoid war through alliances, economic control, etc, it either backfires, or simply delays war a little. Countries not willing to fight will be swallowed up or brought under the direct control of those who are. Depressing? Sure, but that is human nature, and that is why it is important for yourself and your fellow citizen to be vigilant participants in your society to prevent this from happening, AND to be willing to fight if a war does happen. I guess that my point is that most US citizens do not have that will to fight for their country, their family, and their society. They are not proud of themselves, where they came from, or their country. Why would they give their lives after all? Their entire lifestyle is contrary to what makes a good soldier AND citizen.
Am I right? Am I being too harsh? Do I not have a good take on things? Have I just lost my mind? You tell me.
To be fair, I am one of those who bring Norway's ratio up to 40th place....
And if Norway ever get invaded, my first course of action will be to order myself another drink on the Cuban beach hotel I fled to....
And if Norway ever get invaded, my first course of action will be to order myself another drink on the Cuban beach hotel I fled to....
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
To be fair, I am one of those who bring Norway's ratio up to 40th place....
And if Norway ever get invaded, my first course of action will be to order myself another drink on the Cuban beach hotel I fled to....
Confirming the stereotype of the cowardly Eurowheenie, are we?To be fair, I am one of those who bring Norway's ratio up to 40th place....
And if Norway ever get invaded, my first course of action will be to order myself another drink on the Cuban beach hotel I fled to....
Off to the Gulag camps with you
After all, Europe is also communist
Andres.My serious opinion is that this is all fuss about nothing. For example if you count together military forces of European Union the totals are:
Active military personnel: 1,536,274
Reserve force: 4,549,222
Paramilitary: 798,800
total: 6,884,296
Just for reference USA
Active military personnel: 1,445,000
Total Reserve: 833,616
total: 2,278,616
So in matter of fact i think that EU countries have too many military personnel compared to what their task is.Surprising isnt it? Military is among things that European integration might benefit us all. By cutting off elements that are overlapping i am quite sure that EU area could have a military that could have serious long distance strike capabilities, while being more then able to defend our own area and i dont think we would need to even use more money then we are already using. To me scaring people with conventional attack of Russia is more then far fetched. Yes, they have over 1 million active soldiers and 20 million in reserve, but like you pointed out in your post. You need money to wage wars.With a GDP size of Spain, how prolonged conflict you think Russia can maintain with any large size mobilisation? China on the other hand is huge economical power already, but when you look at their military, you can see that they are not even considering starting an arms race with anyone as they dont simply have need for such thing.They rather get more rich, which sounds prettty reasonable.
Active military personnel: 1,536,274
Reserve force: 4,549,222
Paramilitary: 798,800
total: 6,884,296
Just for reference USA
Active military personnel: 1,445,000
Total Reserve: 833,616
total: 2,278,616
So in matter of fact i think that EU countries have too many military personnel compared to what their task is.Surprising isnt it? Military is among things that European integration might benefit us all. By cutting off elements that are overlapping i am quite sure that EU area could have a military that could have serious long distance strike capabilities, while being more then able to defend our own area and i dont think we would need to even use more money then we are already using. To me scaring people with conventional attack of Russia is more then far fetched. Yes, they have over 1 million active soldiers and 20 million in reserve, but like you pointed out in your post. You need money to wage wars.With a GDP size of Spain, how prolonged conflict you think Russia can maintain with any large size mobilisation? China on the other hand is huge economical power already, but when you look at their military, you can see that they are not even considering starting an arms race with anyone as they dont simply have need for such thing.They rather get more rich, which sounds prettty reasonable.
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
Andres.My serious opinion is that this is all fuss about nothing. For example if you count together military forces of European Union the totals are:
Active military personnel: 1,536,274
Reserve force: 4,549,222
Paramilitary: 798,800
total: 6,884,296
Just for reference USA
Active military personnel: 1,445,000
Total Reserve: 833,616
total: 2,278,616
So in matter of fact i think that EU countries have too many military personnel compared to what their task is.Surprising isnt it? Military is among things that European integration might benefit us all. By cutting off elements that are overlapping i am quite sure that EU area could have a military that could have serious long distance strike capabilities, while being more then able to defend our own area and i dont think we would need to even use more money then we are already using. To me scaring people with conventional attack of Russia is more then far fetched. Yes, they have over 1 million active soldiers and 20 million in reserve, but like you pointed out in your post. You need money to wage wars.With a GDP size of Spain, how prolonged conflict you think Russia can maintain with any large size mobilisation? China on the other hand is huge economical power already, but when you look at their military, you can see that they are not even considering starting an arms race with anyone as they dont simply have need for such thing.They rather get more rich, which sounds prettty reasonable.
europe does not need to worry about russia's conventional capability, as i have said before; they are a busted flush.Andres.My serious opinion is that this is all fuss about nothing. For example if you count together military forces of European Union the totals are:
Active military personnel: 1,536,274
Reserve force: 4,549,222
Paramilitary: 798,800
total: 6,884,296
Just for reference USA
Active military personnel: 1,445,000
Total Reserve: 833,616
total: 2,278,616
So in matter of fact i think that EU countries have too many military personnel compared to what their task is.Surprising isnt it? Military is among things that European integration might benefit us all. By cutting off elements that are overlapping i am quite sure that EU area could have a military that could have serious long distance strike capabilities, while being more then able to defend our own area and i dont think we would need to even use more money then we are already using. To me scaring people with conventional attack of Russia is more then far fetched. Yes, they have over 1 million active soldiers and 20 million in reserve, but like you pointed out in your post. You need money to wage wars.With a GDP size of Spain, how prolonged conflict you think Russia can maintain with any large size mobilisation? China on the other hand is huge economical power already, but when you look at their military, you can see that they are not even considering starting an arms race with anyone as they dont simply have need for such thing.They rather get more rich, which sounds prettty reasonable.
http://tachesdhuile.blogspot.com/201...d-we-care.html
And fine effort it was.
Just somewhat on topic.
If America deployed most of its 11,036 Paramilitary forces to a war zone, it might tend to make the US a safer place to live. Though I am sure it would have an escalating effect on civilian casualties where ever they employed them.
If America deployed most of its 11,036 Paramilitary forces to a war zone, it might tend to make the US a safer place to live. Though I am sure it would have an escalating effect on civilian casualties where ever they employed them.
Andres how can you as an intelligent man speak such nonsense
Clever post. 
However remember that the U.S. has an all volunteer Army while many of the other nations mentioned have mandatory military service/conscription. I'll take a volunteer over a conscript any day.
However remember that the U.S. has an all volunteer Army while many of the other nations mentioned have mandatory military service/conscription. I'll take a volunteer over a conscript any day.agreed, a more useful metric is dollars of defence budget per uniformed serving soldier.
the higher the the figure the more is spent of training and equipment.
the higher the the figure the more is spent of training and equipment.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Clever post. However remember that the U.S. has an all volunteer Army while many of the other nations mentioned have mandatory military service/conscription. I'll take a volunteer over a conscript any day.
You mean like Persia had paid volunteers and for Greek city states mandatory service was essential part of being citizen?Clever post.
However remember that the U.S. has an all volunteer Army while many of the other nations mentioned have mandatory military service/conscription. I'll take a volunteer over a conscript any day.
Originally Posted by Kagemusha:
You mean like Persia had paid volunteers and for Greek city states mandatory service was essential part of being citizen?
Sorry. I don't get it. You mean like Persia had paid volunteers and for Greek city states mandatory service was essential part of being citizen?
Well, I think I understand your statement just not how it relates to my comment. All I'm thinking of now are pomegranates. Yum!
Youtube Video
Edit: Wait...That makes me sound really gay, doesn't it?
As a follow-up:
Youtube Video
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Sorry. I don't get it.
Well, I think I understand your statement just not how it relates to my comment. All I'm thinking of now are pomegranates. Yum!
Youtube Video
Edit: Wait...That makes me sound really gay, doesn't it?
Well...Um..That is bit out of loop...maybe, but to the point. Maybe this whole volunteer /conscription thingy is bit of a cultural thing? I am by no means expert of US Federal law, but in your legistlation there is that war time draft, is it still there? So basically at war time some of your population can be forced to arms based on some conditions. That happened last time in Vietnam? So basically a menacing selective fast forward mandatory military service, which still does not apply to all male population? Maybe some of the Americans might clear this thing up a bit, as to me this very thing seems to be what is making "conscription" a curse word in American mindset. About the paid volunteer army. Isnt a "paid volunteer" bit of an oxymoron? Basically any career soldier in any country becomes a paid volunteer when he is not anymore part of Mandatory military service.Sorry. I don't get it.
Well, I think I understand your statement just not how it relates to my comment. All I'm thinking of now are pomegranates. Yum!
Youtube Video
Edit: Wait...That makes me sound really gay, doesn't it?
Again, how many times do I have to state that the size of a military is not an indication of its population's military readiness, or, indeed, its willingness? What would happen to European armies if Europe was invaded?
Let's put it like this, if you had to recruit people for your military, would you rather be recruiting Americans or Euros? If you had to have an identical number of either Euro or American military personnel guarding you with the same equipment, who would you choose? I think that I know the answer, and THAT is my point.
Let's put it like this, if you had to recruit people for your military, would you rather be recruiting Americans or Euros? If you had to have an identical number of either Euro or American military personnel guarding you with the same equipment, who would you choose? I think that I know the answer, and THAT is my point.
Originally Posted by :
If you had to have an identical number of either Euro or American military personnel guarding you with the same equipment, who would you choose?
If I was feeling facecious I'd say americans, so that my more valuable euro troops are put to better use than guard duty.If you had to have an identical number of either Euro or American military personnel guarding you with the same equipment, who would you choose?
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
If I was feeling facecious I'd say americans, so that my more valuable euro troops are put to better use than guard duty.
lol, Sorry Greyblades, but I hardly believe that you are being honest...are you? :PIf I was feeling facecious I'd say americans, so that my more valuable euro troops are put to better use than guard duty.
Thank you Kag! This is an actual analysis and not just a bunch of unsupported assumptions.
The question on troop quality is interesting. Is a volunteer who does so only to get a solid paycheck and get his or her college paid for more or less combat effective than a draftee?
I think it is a double edged sword. People who volunteer for the Marines, Rangers, or any of the other more 'elite' units are definitely looking for action and would thus be expected to have better morale and fortitude than a draftee. However, those who join the regular units and support services for economic reasons shouldn't be assumed to be more motivated than a common draftee.
I would say the volunteer aspect gives the US an overall edge over other militaries, but the effects are not evenly distributed throughout the services.
The question on troop quality is interesting. Is a volunteer who does so only to get a solid paycheck and get his or her college paid for more or less combat effective than a draftee?
I think it is a double edged sword. People who volunteer for the Marines, Rangers, or any of the other more 'elite' units are definitely looking for action and would thus be expected to have better morale and fortitude than a draftee. However, those who join the regular units and support services for economic reasons shouldn't be assumed to be more motivated than a common draftee.
I would say the volunteer aspect gives the US an overall edge over other militaries, but the effects are not evenly distributed throughout the services.
Originally Posted by :
lol, Sorry Greyblades, but I hardly believe that you are being honest...are you? :P
Undecided.lol, Sorry Greyblades, but I hardly believe that you are being honest...are you? :P
Apart from the fact that I dont agree with the idea, I cant realy commit to it becuase you are asking if you prefer one continent of people over another. Now, if you asked if I believe that a Swiss could do better than a Texan then I might be more able to answer. But there are too many different types of europeans and americans to make a proper choice.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Undecided.
Apart from the fact that I dont agree with the idea, I cant realy commit to it becuase you are asking if you prefer one continent of people over another. Now, if you asked if I believe that a Swiss could do better than a Texan then I might be more able to answer. But there are too many different types of europeans and americans to make a proper choice.
A German Soldier from Munich vs. a U.S. Marine from Texas. How is that? (And Germans are probably on average quite a bit better than other European soldiers, so I think that is fair.Undecided.
Apart from the fact that I dont agree with the idea, I cant realy commit to it becuase you are asking if you prefer one continent of people over another. Now, if you asked if I believe that a Swiss could do better than a Texan then I might be more able to answer. But there are too many different types of europeans and americans to make a proper choice.
Originally Posted by Andres:
Confirming the stereotype of the cowardly Eurowheenie, are we?
Off to the Gulag camps with you
After all, Europe is also communist
Bah! If my leadership is retarded enough to get invaded, they deserve the whip.Confirming the stereotype of the cowardly Eurowheenie, are we?
Off to the Gulag camps with you
After all, Europe is also communist
Originally Posted by Vuk:
lol, Sorry Greyblades, but I hardly believe that you are being honest...are you? :P
When people think of best fighting forces, they make comments like "Israel", "British SAS" and then the German equivalent or the French Foreign Legion. I never heard anyone say "Americans".lol, Sorry Greyblades, but I hardly believe that you are being honest...are you? :P
Also, could anyone please point out how these two threads differ from unzipping our pants and measuring?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Also, could anyone please point out how these two threads differ from unzipping our pants and measuring?
Because if we are dealing with the Norwegian military we at least have something to measure. Also, could anyone please point out how these two threads differ from unzipping our pants and measuring?
Originally Posted by Vuk:
Because if we are dealing with the Norwegian military we at least have something to measure.
Yeah, there is nothing to measure in one about the American military. Because if we are dealing with the Norwegian military we at least have something to measure.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
Because if we are dealing with the Norwegian military we at least have something to measure.
This is more an enough proof of the old saying "loud talker, small ...."Because if we are dealing with the Norwegian military we at least have something to measure.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
A German Soldier from Munich vs. a U.S. Marine from Texas. How is that? (And Germans are probably on average quite a bit better than other European soldiers, so I think that is fair.
Terrain?A German Soldier from Munich vs. a U.S. Marine from Texas. How is that? (And Germans are probably on average quite a bit better than other European soldiers, so I think that is fair.
Don't feed the trolls!
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Don't feed the trolls!
lol, this is not MY thread, nor is it in the same spirit as my thread. I am a troll because I am attacked by a troll and fire back?Don't feed the trolls!
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO