| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| The Top Military Powers 20 Years From Now |
| 2005-05-16 |
| May 16, 2005: Who will be the big world powers twenty years from now? This is a tough prediction to make, mostly because in 20 years, many unexpected changes could take place. For example, two decades ago, the United States and Soviet Union were locked in a Cold War. Nobody expected that in five years from then, the Berlin Wall would fall and the Soviet Union would literally disintegrate. That said, there is an idea of who is emerging, and who is fading. 10. Brazil — This country is emerging as the dominant military and economic force in Latin America. It operates the only aircraft carrier outside the US Navy in the Western Hemisphere. Currently, Brazil is trying to build up its forces still more, and is pursuing a program to build a nuclear-powered attack submarine and could be pursuing nuclear weapons development as well. 9. South Korea — This country has an indigenous naval program that is quite solid, and one of the better armies in the world. The only thing holding it back is a reliance on foreign designs for aircraft, although it is manufacturing F-16s locally. 8. Germany — Despite reductions in the German defense budget after the end of the Cold War, this military has several quality systems (like the Leopard 2 main battle tank and the Type 212 submarine). Germany also has had a tradition of effective military forces (just ask the Romans). 7. Japan — This is a country which has, with one hand tied behind its back, developed the number two navy in the Pacific Rim, and arguably the second-best air force (tied with China). The only thing that holds Japan back is an apparent lack of desire. Things could rapidly change on that front, though. 6. Russia — This country has a lot of nukes, and a lot of bombers. While naval designs (like the Kirov-class battlecruisers and Oscar-class submarines) are good on paper, they still have quality issues, and accidents are not unheard of. Still, this is a country that has some advantages, and is no pushover. 5. France — Probably in better shape than what one would expect. This is largely because of the quality of the troops (due to career NCOs). Has remained self-sufficient in terms of producing major weapons systems (see the Rafale), and operates the only CVN outside the U.S. Navy (even though it has had problems). 4. China — This is a force that has quantity on its side, and is rapidly trying to improve its quality. Their air force will probably have the largest force of Su-27 fighters in the world (at least 580, compared to the 550 in Russian service). The Chinese navy is rapidly introducing new classed of destroyers and frigates that are close to the quality of American and Japanese surface combatants. That said, it is still behind, and the Chinese financial situation could go downhill rapidly. 3. UK — While small, this is a force that not only had a tradition of high quality, it has proven as recently as 1982 that it can operate half a world away and still accomplish a difficult mission. Sailor for sailor, there is no better navy than the Royal Navy. 2. India — Probably the most dynamic country in terms of the leaps. India is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in a number of areas, and what it cannot produce, it is able to buy. It also has some of the best training in the world, and can give an unsuspecting opponent a surprise. Probably the next superpower due to a more firm economic footing, and the fact that its Navy is much more advanced than China's. 1. USA — Even while fighting a war on terrorism, the United States is pursuing new technology (such as UCAVs) to maintain an edge over any potential challenger. The forces are well-trained, and the United States Navy is still the most powerful in the world. The term superpower almost understates what the United States can do — it is arguably a hyperpower. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #25 Well, TW, they used them against Nazi Germany during the Second World War, sending a whole division and supporting troops to Italy. In the current climate there is no immediate threat, but that can change quickly with volatile neighbors like Argentina and Venezuela. Right now, Brazil's Lula da Silva is on the best of terms with the demented Chavez but that can change at the next election. Many Brazilians hate and fear their Spanish-speaking neighbors. I am not justifying this, just stating it as a fact that has created conflict and potential conflict for 200 years. In the broader picture, Brazil (like Chile) has global interests thanks to its burgeoning economy and this could well create conflict in other areas of the world or on the high seas at some future time. Much closer to home, the Islamofascist infestation in the tri-border region where Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina meet has grown to monstrous proportions under the benign protection of the pro-Arab Lula regime. When Lula is gone, this will have to be dealt with. At this point, military force may be the only option, a lot of it. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-05-16 23:23 |
| #24 Who would Brazil use its armed forces against? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-05-16 23:12 |
| #23 SH: Isreal is just too small. Their military is darned good, but they have no ability to project other than air raids once you get past the adjacent states. Their technology is obviously very good, but they can't do everything with their limited manpower, so they have to buy stuff from other countries for those items which they don't develop in-house. That dependency makes them weaker, as there always could be an arms embargo or something. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-05-16 22:33 |
| #22 AC: That's a good point about Brazil's potential, but there is a countervailing trend. Remember Canada went from an 8-division army supported 3000 miles away, a powerful air force, and the third-largest navy in the world to ... nothing, really. Brazil is a big country with pretty good technology, but if they get several politicians of the Lula ilk who make vast spending increases in social welfare (especially health care, which economically devastates governments running it), all that will be for nought. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-05-16 22:30 |
| #21 AC, I operated with many of the naval forces of South America in '91 or so and was impressed with their personnel but not their equipment. I think Australia, Poland and Columbia will continue to benefit from working closely with the US. Why wouldn't Israel make the top 10? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2005-05-16 20:52 |
| #20 " de Gaulle?! He ain't even in this war!" - Major General Colt |
| Posted by: mrp 2005-05-16 19:08 |
| #19 No Arab country? No 'Lions of Islam'? When asked why he was so successful a General, Moshe Dayan said "Because I have only fought arabs". |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-05-16 18:10 |
| #18 I think China will be number two. At 8% a year for the next 20 years, China will have a nominal GDP of $6T compared to Uncle Sam's $24T (assuming 4% growth). However, unburdened by social welfare schemes, China will have half of Uncle Sam's military budget in real dollars (assuming an 8% of GDP number) or $480m, at a time when Uncle Sam will be spending $960m. On a purchasing power parity basis, China will be spending much less money than the US for manpower (i.e. troops) and the Chinese arms industry will presumably have developed (with help from formerly unemployed Russian engineers) sufficiently for them to produce most of their arms domestically at a sharp discount to Russian prices, given lower Chinese labor costs. Bottom line, by 2025, I expect the Chinese weapons requisition program to equal, if not surpass, what the Pentagon is spending, even though their total military budget will only be half a large as the US defense budget. The question is whether we want to do anything about it. My feeling is that it may make sense to de-commit from some of our larger defense obligations in the Western Pacific. The question at hand is whether we want to be on the front lines everywhere. I think not, if the Chinese reach parity with us. The Western Pacific powers really need to be doing a lot more in their own defense. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-05-16 17:58 |
| #17 rjschwarz - I agree. These things end up as shiny toys that never get used. Had Argentina used the deMayo, they might have won the war. Even if the thing had been blown out of the water by a sub afterwards it would have been a success if it had taken out a British carrier, or better still, the QE2 while still full of troops. Instead it cowered back by the coast and was useless. And wtf does Brazil need a carrier for anyway? They don't need it against any credible opponents, especially since they'll be unlikely to risk it, just like Argentina. And if they somehow got in a fight with America the US will sink the thing, no matter where they try to hide it. I can't imagine any US admiral is going to pass up the chance to be the first in 60 years to blow away a carrier. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-05-16 5:26:00 PM |
| #16 Atomic Conspiracy, my guess is the discussion on who would fly them was more about who would teach the fliers. New Jets, new requirements. Having a single carrier is virtually worthless, by the way. It becomes such a big thing of pride that the country in question doesn't dare risk it. Ask the Argentines about the action the Biente Cynco deMayo saw during the Falkland Crisis. It just waited out the war with a land based air cover for fear it might be hurt. The other thing about a carrier is it's main purpose is force-projection. For the life of me I can't see how/where Brazil would use such a thing where there own land based fighter wings wouldn't be superior in every way. I"m sure I'm missing something but a nation building a carrier they are likely unwilling to use, and for which they have no real purpose doesn't come off as all that impressive. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-05-16 17:11 |
| #15 i dont see how these guys think China has a greater chance of a financial crisis than India. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2005-05-16 16:42 |
| #14 Does this ranking factor in things like willingness to use force out of area; determination to spend necessary sums to maintain pace with other, rising powers; battle-hardiness of troops, etc? |
| Posted by: thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-16 16:25 |
| #13 France and Germany are no better--economically--than a third-world country. Given that they both have a high abortion ratio, these will be Islamic countries in twenty years. Put Japan (the new and improved version) in the top four; find spots for France and Germany to coincide with Peru or Mexico, and the rankings are then solid. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-05-16 16:20 |
| #12 JFM way ahead of me, per usual. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-05-16 15:42 |
| #11 And the first one, the fracus in the Coral Sea. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-05-16 15:40 |
| #10 Hmmm... link button didn't work Take 2 http://carrierbattles.cjb.net/ |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-05-16 15:20 |
| #9 The battle of the Philippine sea (mariana(sp?) turkey shoot) was one of the biggest in history. Check link for more carrier battle goodness... |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-05-16 15:19 |
| #8 Edward Yee Coral Sea was another "pure" carrier battle and AFAIK there were a couple other ones around Guadalcanal. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-05-16 14:50 |
| #7 An irony here. The ship the DeGaulle replaced, Foch, is motoring along trouble-free as the Brazilian carrier mentioned at the beginning of the article, now renamed Sao Paulo. Brazil has operated a carrier since 1956, btw. I am a student of Latin American, especially Brazilian, military affairs, having been stationed at the US Embassy in Brasilia at one point in my Army career. In dealing with this subject, it is often necessary to overcome an amazing amount of prejudice and ignorance. A while back, for instance, the subject of Venezuela's MiG-29 purchase came up at another message board. More than one poster asked where the Venezuelans would get pilots capable of flying them. A learned chap informed them that Cuban or Russian pilots would undoubtedly be brought in for that purpose. In fact, the FAV (Fuerza Aerea Venezolana) has flown jets with its own, native-born pilots since 1951, and has flown F-16s since 1982. It is no mystery to me where they will get the pilots for the MiG-29s and it doesn't involve foreign mercenaries. It is almost taken for granted that Brazil's sizable force of C-130s and C-137s is subsidized by the US, probably the CIA, since "they don't have the money or the know-how for that." In fact, Brazil has a trillion dollar plus economy and its pilots flew in combat in Italy during the Second World War, so there is no factual basis for this assumption. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-05-16 14:29 |
| #6 Actually, reportedly the only carrier fight in history was in Midway, and neither carrier saw the other either. |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-05-16 14:13 |
| #5 Mike - That was also the last time battleships slugged it out. A couple of Pearl Harbor veterans got some revenge in the Surigao Straits. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-05-16 2:12:38 PM |
| #4 Personally, I'd like to see the De Gaulle take on a Nimitz-class. There hasn't been a good carrier-vs-carrier smackdown since, what, Leyte Gulf, 1944? |
| Posted by: Mike 2005-05-16 13:52 |
| #3 Imagine that. The severest losses the DeGalle will ever inflict will be at the gaming tables. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-05-16 13:35 |
| #2 I predict by 2025, the DeGaulle will be either a floating casino or renamed the Khomeini. It still won't do much though... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-05-16 13:25 |
| #1 The big divide will be 'projection', how far and how much. |
| Posted by: Jeper Elmeath5805 2005-05-16 13:21 |