Military Review

The military potentials of the strongest countries of the world: who is stronger

"Reedus" found out how states are building up military force to prevent terrorist attacks in their territories.

"Now the kingdom of Qin threatens us from the west, the kingdom of Chu surrounds us from the south, the kingdom of Zhao attacks from the north, the kingdom of Qi comes close to our eastern borders, the kingdom of Yan cuts us off from the rear, the kingdom of Han intends to invade our lands from the front. From the troops of the six kingdoms we must defend ourselves from all sides. The situation is very unfavorable, "
U-Tzu, "On the art of war"

Has the world become safer?

On the eve of September, 11, 15 celebrated its anniversary in New York, of which more than nine thousand people were killed, of whom nearly three thousand were killed.

Nine days after the tragic events, September 20 of 2001, then US President George W. Bush, in an address to Congress and the American people, officially declared war on terrorism:

“Our war on terrorism begins with al-Qaida, but this will not end. It will not end until every terrorist group in the world is found, stopped, and defeated.”

Two weeks later, on October 7, the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom. The operation took place before 2014 in Afghanistan, Western Sahara and the Philippines. From that moment on, the arms race resumed in the world. All major states began to build up military force to prevent terrorist attacks in their territories.

Arms race

To increase the budget expenditures on the defense industry, Western politicians have come up with other “threats”, the main of which they consider the Russian Federation, which, in their opinion, pursues an aggressive policy in Eastern Europe.

In fact, the United States does not like that with the advent of Putin, Russia began to pursue an independent foreign policy. This is what the US military uses, claiming that independent Russia is a threat to "democracy" and world security. Thanks to this image of the enemy, the American army is receiving ever greater budgetary injections for the development and production of new deadly machines.

However, Russia, China, India and other large states also increase defense spending. And then the main question arises: has this arms race made our world safer? Or is it all a waste of budget money?

Before answering, one should compare the military potentials of the world's strongest states and understand how each of them is ready to participate in the war against world terror.

To successfully wage any war, a country needs to spend a large amount of budget money on the army. In this regard, the United States is leading by a large margin, whose military budget in 2015 was more than 580 billion dollars.

Expenses were spent not only on the manufacture of air, sea and ground equipment, but also on innovative technologies. In the United States at the moment, great attention is paid to robotized equipment, infantry equipment and the creation of new systems that allow secretly to conduct operations in the sky and on the ground.

In addition, the United States is constantly increasing its presence in space: the largest grouping of military satellites of the world belongs to the United States. In principle, every “civilian” satellite (whether it is a communications or navigation satellite) can at one moment become an instrument of military operations. If we take into account that more than 30 units fly around GPS satellites, then this amount is enough to track the movement of all the armies of a potential enemy.

As for the other countries on our list, the sum of their military budgets will be 1,75 times less than US defense spending. The Russian military budget, interestingly, is eight billion dollars less than that of the UK. The main item of our country's military expenditures (68%) is the state defense order - the purchase of mass-produced weapons and prototypes of military equipment and small arms. weapons. In the operations of the Russian special services, it is increasingly possible to notice robotized equipment, which is bought abroad, and is being done by domestic manufacturers.

The military potentials of the strongest countries of the world: who is stronger

Without oil, the entire army will be completely immobilized, therefore the indicators of oil production and consumption are among the main ones in the assessment of the country's military potential.

Despite a smaller amount of proven reserves of black gold than, for example, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or even Canada, Russia is the world leader in oil production. In terms of oil consumption, Russia ranks fourth, overtaking only the UK and France.
Consumption and oil production have a ratio of one to 3,33. In the United States, this ratio is 2,23 / 1: oil consumption is 19 million barrels per day, and production is 8,5. For the US, such a large gap between consumption and production is quite reasonable, since, unlike in the Russian Federation, oil products for them are not the main export item: almost all the oil produced goes to the domestic market.

In addition, the United States has nothing to worry about, because Venezuela is close to them - the Latin American state with the largest proven oil reserves in the world. This state supplies the United States with 86% of all exported oil. Approximately the same situation with the other countries that are considered in the rating: China, India, France and the United Kingdom do not depend on the export of raw materials as much as Russia.

China, the largest state in terms of population, at the same time has the largest number of people who can be drafted into the army in the event of a major local or global conflict. The size of the army (including those transferred to the reserve) is the largest in the world and is 4,6 million people.

Not much for this indicator lags behind China, India, whose population has recently reached 1,3 a billion people. Russia, despite the relatively small number of people, has the third largest army: 3,2 million people, of whom 760 thousands serve. The United States, on the contrary, has the second-largest army of soldiers, but the number of soldiers in the reserve is only 1,1 million people. France and the United Kingdom in this case do not have such high rates.

Ground systems

Ground systems are designed for combat such as ground-to-air and ground-to-ground. They include Tanks, armored personnel carriers (armored personnel carriers), self-propelled artillery mounts (self-propelled guns) and launchers, which are an integral part of missile systems.

The Russian Federation leads in the number of tanks, self-propelled guns and launchers. The most common tanks are the upgraded T-72 and T-80. At the same time, Russia has more new T-90, as well as tanks of the latest generation T-14 "Armata".

In this case, the United States focuses on armored personnel carriers, which are often equipped with anti-tank guns (for example, LAV-25, equipped with TOW).

The remaining states do not have such significant quantities of ground systems and often purchase or copy models of equipment developed in the USSR / Russia and the USA.

Air force

The undisputed leader in the number of air forces is the United States, which in wars focus on Aviation.

The fact is that the USA is a country inaccessible and is surrounded, in general, by allied states (Canada in the north and Mexico in the south).
It is known that the United States has a significant number of bases throughout Eurasia, however, to deliver the necessary equipment to them, a large number of transport aircraft are required. Actually, the United States has more than five thousand of them (against 1100 of the Russian Federation, which is closest to the United States in this indicator).

Fighters also allow you to destroy both air and ground targets. America has almost two times more of them than China and three times more than the Russian Federation.


Despite the fact that Russia has access to the 13 seas, its naval forces are much inferior to the Chinese and American ones. However, the Western media for a long time frightened their readers and viewers with Russian submarines. It is not surprising: our submarines surfaced somewhere near the west, then not far from the east coast of the United States. Recently (8 June 2016) one of our submarines was intercepted and deployed by a British frigate on its way to the English Channel.

The leader in the number of naval combat units became the United States. The only parameter by which they did not become the leader of the list is the number of frigates, of which China has eight times more.

Other factors

In addition to the statistical factors described above, there are others. For example, the experience of the troops. It is impossible to accurately calculate the experience, but it is not difficult to understand that the United States is leading in this regard. The army of this country since 1990-s has participated in countless local conflicts in the Middle East.

Another important factor is the geopolitical factor mentioned above. The United States on both sides — west and east — is surrounded by oceans, and from the north and south by Canada and Mexico, respectively. Relations with both countries in the United States are at a high enough level, and in the event of a global conflict, they are unlikely to turn to the side of the enemy. America is again in a winning position. No other major country has such advantages. The enemy can get to them except by air and sea, but it will take an unforgivably long time (and not as shown in American movies and video games, where the “evil Russians” capture New York in two hours).

There are, of course, nuclear weapons, but if the largest states start waving nuclear batons, there can be nothing left of the Earth overnight.

Hack and predictor Aviator

Despite the rapid development of weapons, the world has not become safer. The war on terrorism declared by the Americans is still not over. Despite the massive bombing and ground operations. Why all? Because this war is an illustration of the “race between the bullet and armor,” where the “bullet” is always slightly ahead.

Terrorist organizations today use more efficient ways to conduct their activities. They do not just mindlessly attack military convoys, but carefully plan their operations. Today they are shooting a large group of police or military, and tomorrow a lone terrorist will do his dirty work in the center of some European city. The Islamists have moved from the creation of groups to the formation of pseudo-caliphs with a multi-million population.

This fact does not mean that we must stop fighting terrorism and let radical Islamists into the UN. No, the civilized world must unite. Moreover, not around one of the superpowers, but on an equal basis.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 13 September 2016 06: 26
    "To successfully wage any war, a country needs to spend a large amount of budget money on the army."

    And spend it efficiently. In the United States, huge expenses are not directly related to defense capability.
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 13 September 2016 11: 00
      In any case, the United States is now utterly stronger than all countries. The article shows that shapkozakidatelny, if not to say stupid comments like "tear NATO", "drive the USA" have no real prerequisites, and this is to put it mildly.
      1. Siberia 9444
        Siberia 9444 13 September 2016 14: 42
        No one argues that the US army is weak. Our country is not going to attack the NATO countries, but we are waiting for the NATO offensive and we will have no choice since the war will be to exterminate the Russian people! But we will not stand and watch how we (mat) of 1941 will no longer be allowed.
        1. weksha50
          weksha50 13 September 2016 15: 00
          Siberia 9444 Today, 14:42 PM ↑ New
          "No one and no one argues that the US army is weak. But we will not stand and look like us (checkmate) 1941 is no longer valid"....

          Unfortunately, now it is much easier to attack suddenly - with the use of a "global strike" with axes, MKR, than in 1941 ...
          Honestly - it’s better for us, Russia, to use now any opportunities for the quickest equipment and rearmament, than - sorry - pipiskami to measure who is stronger ...
          Unfortunately, only military operations will be able to show THIS ... God forbid that it doesn’t come to that ... Or so that by then Russia would be more or less ready ...
      2. Leonid Har
        Leonid Har 13 September 2016 16: 27
        How to say? The Americans have enough strength to cope with the banana republics, but the US Army does not have enough forces and means to capture Russia.
        1. Alf
          Alf 13 September 2016 19: 44
          but the US Army does not have enough forces and means to capture Russia.

          Do States Need to Capture Russia?
          A simple hypothetical scenario.
          Russia and the United States clash in the war. Neither one nor the other side wants to use. Scary. Whether we like it or not, the battles will go on the territory of Europe and Russia.
          When calculating forces, NATO forces, mainly those of Germany, Britain and France, should also be taken into account. The rest of the "NATO members" will not provide decisive assistance in the war, they will be driven forward like cannon fodder. Both sides will begin to suffer losses. Even if for one shot down SU or MiG or for one T-90 and T-80 NATO will pay with 2-3 with their own, but no one canceled the overall advantage. In addition, the China factor should not be forgotten. Even if the PRC does not enter the war, then Russia, as in 41-45, will have to keep a large contingent on the border with the Celestial Empire, which will not participate in the war with NATO, thereby increasing the quantitative gap. In this situation, Russia may lose. And then the US will not OCCUPATE ALL of Russia. It will be enough for them to form a puppet government from the members of the 5th column.
          1. Arshhan
            Arshhan 13 September 2016 20: 28
            1) Yes, it is true that nuclear weapons will be used only as a last resort, but nuclear weapons will be applied quite widely.
            2) Forgot more Poland. Its army is considered one of the best in NATO, still Turkey, also a strong grouping ... although in view of current events .... Germany is mainly air and tank units, infantry units are relatively few. Britain- the Navy and the Marines, aviation ... there are few ground forces .... The balance in the Polish, French and Turkish armies is less maintained. The Achilles' heel of NATO, with the exception of the United States, is imprisoned for joint military operations and each country performs certain functions there, if it breaks the connection, this machine will begin to stall. Therefore, we pay great attention to all kinds of jammers, electronic warfare systems, etc.
            3) We also have the best missile defense and air defense according to the calculations of foreign specialists, if a breakthrough is necessary in the Russian space of NATO aviation, the losses will be in the region of 5 NATO sides to 1 Russian. Our analysts are more modest and call 2-3 sides to one of ours.
            4) The same is with tank units. Russia has the most powerful MLRS. None of the tank systems will protect against the volley of MLRS batteries, which means huge losses.
            5) At the expense of China, I completely agree.
            In Europe, everyone knows and rests ... they do not want to go to slaughter and the United States alone does not overpower us. There will be no war on this until the United States develops a system that is guaranteed not to allow a retaliatory strike by Russian ICBMs on the states. As soon as this is achieved, a blow will be dealt immediately. But then there will only be an invasion.
          2. A.Lex
            A.Lex 13 September 2016 20: 41
            You have forgotten only one thing.
            Military doctrine of Russia:
            "Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear or non-nuclear weapons against it or its allies," says the military doctrine approved by President Vladimir Putin.
            So, you can not really worry about anyone trying to armed aggression (but you should be alert) ...
            And about the budget - Yankia - the MOST corrupt country on the planet. Lobbyism is the idol of the green paper workers! Hence the military budget inflated to disgrace. The entire Yankees economy is built on wars, theft, deception. And I forgot - the genocide of the indigenous population.
            A nation professing such a religion as Protestantism is the enemy of the human race. I already in many places laid out the lines of one work describing Protestants:
            1. A.Lex
              A.Lex 13 September 2016 20: 43
              ... Those of the English who did not have vast land for raising sheep, or money to build a manufactory, traditionally went to sea. But, don't fight, trade, or fish. No, the current generation of English sailors knew another way to get rich quick, even two whole paths - the slave trade and piracy. It was at the end of the sixteenth century that Drake, a former pirate, later granted by the nobility, and in legends, the lover of the queen herself, showed himself. Yes, then the famous "English dream" appeared - to pirate and plunder in his youth, in order to become a governor and lord in maturity, a respected person, treated kindly by the queen. In a few decades, the "English Dream" will smoothly pass into the slogan of all Protestants, their religious symbol. Pastors of all countries will instill in the flock - "If you achieved wealth, no matter by what method, robbed, killed, betrayed, in any case, you are marked by God. Wealth, regardless of the method of obtaining, is a sign of divine mercy to man."
              It is from those times, the end of the sixteenth century, that the feet of the immorality of modern Western society grow. First, the Protestant countries - England, Sweden, Holland, in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries achieved a sharp economic growth, naturally associated with political and military influence. The nobles, industrialists and merchants of these countries professed the above-mentioned principle of the omnipotence of money, later called in short "money does not smell." The British, having previously recognized the Indians of North America as having no soul, that is, animals, and not people, actively engaged in the destruction of all Chingachgooks and Sharp-Sighted Falcons. Not only shooting, but also infecting with measles and smallpox, starving people with hunger and cold on reservations.
              The Dutch, who were engaged in the same, brutal genocide of the natives from Southeast Asia, in Indonesia, from where the looted wealth had been exported for three centuries, did not lag behind them. Moreover, the descendants of the Kyuoz were so cruel that the Indonesians, Malays and other Indo-Chinese, including the inhabitants of Ceylon, originally Dutch, met the British (!) As liberators from heavy oppression. The Swedes, for some reason, who did not become a colonial power, although they landed in America, perfectly demonstrated the Protestant skills of supermen in Eastern Europe. They also did not consider the Finns, Russians, Karelians and other savages to be people, like their English brothers in American Indians. Therefore, the Swedish troops, until the end of the eighteenth century, with the indifference of a butcher slaughtering a pig, completely cut out all the settlements of Aboriginal, non-Protestant religion in the occupied territories.
              Later, the French, who enthusiastically slaughtered the aborigines in their colonies, joined the "advanced brothers of the Europeans", which was not hindered by the Catholic Church, which desperately envied the super profits of Protestants. They were followed by the Germans, Italians, Spaniards. In fairness, it should be noted that in the Catholic occupied lands, the aborigines were considered human, in contrast to the Protestants. Therefore, for all the cruelty of the Spanish Inquisition, the population of South and Central America was not destroyed, as in North America, but mixed with the colonialists and grew significantly. Unlike the North American aborigines, whose birth rate boom is not heard on the reservations.
              And so it happened that initially the Protestants sold other people's souls for wealth, depriving the natives of the right to soul for the sake of profit. Half a millennium later, their distant descendants in Europe have already sold their souls for wealth, depriving themselves of gender and family identity, depriving children of the right to mom and dad. Why are these backward concepts in tolerant Europe? Let there be "parent N1" and "parent N2". Since money does not smell, merchants and industrialists deprive all of humanity of the right to healthy food, treatment, clean air, clean land and clean water. Why preserve clean water and land in the United States when you can take it all away from animals? The same Arabs, Negroes, Ukrainians, Russians? They are not Protestants, therefore, they have no soul. And to kill an animal is not a sin, on the contrary. If you kill a chicken differently than at a poultry farm, but simply chop off the head, you will be sued for cruelty to animals.
              With people, especially non-Protestants, it is much easier, bomb Belgrade (for humanitarian purposes, of course), throw "Molotov cocktails" and burn the Ukrainians alive in Odessa (they are Slavs, and even Orthodox, are the essence of pigs that do not have a soul), and you won't get anything. Rather, there will be money, which, as you know, does not smell. And a person who has earned a lot of money, according to the ideology of Protestants, what? Of course, he is pleasing to God, he is already on the threshold of paradise, regardless of whom and how much he killed, he is rich!
              It was at the end of the sixteenth century that the foundation was laid in Europe, primarily in Protestant countries, for the entire modern inhuman policy of dividing people into first and second grade, into the "golden billion" and the rest ...
              1. A.Lex
                A.Lex 13 September 2016 20: 44
                Maybe after that I will be banned ... However - as always ...
              2. Retvizan
                Retvizan 14 September 2016 23: 42
                In fact, genocide is a standard tool of humanity. We destroyed similar species (Neanderthals, for example) under the root, not sparing anyone. Having achieved complete extermination, they switched to genocide inside. Weakly developed peoples were also subjected (for example, Indians).
                And without aggression and expansion, no nation would have survived. As for the Protestants, let’s not forget what the main slogan of this Catholic branch is. Yes, it's just a song for the development of capitalism. The religion of capitalism.
                But in spite of religion, the usual instincts of domination and expansion moved humanity.
      3. ddd1975
        ddd1975 14 September 2016 04: 19
        Well, here you need to dig deeper ... just in terms of the number of weapons, the term "capsizing" is more suitable for the states. The American forces are very scattered around the world - more than 800 bases. If they begin to concentrate their fleet in some point of the planet, they will most likely sink themselves, and we know how to shoot at the enemy's concentration. The question will always remain with the nuclear potential. Therefore, the article can be considered incomplete - there is no data on nuclear capabilities. And most likely they will decide the outcome ... most likely the planet.
  2. dmi.pris1
    dmi.pris1 13 September 2016 06: 30
    Should the world unite? No, according to one power, the world should lie under them ... From here, this should not happen, only a multipolar world and, accordingly, Russia should not follow the laid blind deaf-mute captain. Events of fifteen years ago have shown this.
  3. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 13 September 2016 06: 36
    Of course, potential is a defining thing, but do not forget that having the potential of the whole of Europe, first Napoleon, then the "possessed" Adolf, attacking Russia, eventually ended their days in the "ditch of History"! Well, the "hegemons" have not learned their lessons since the time of Alexander Nevsky: "Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword! Russia has stood and stands on that!"
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 13 September 2016 09: 41
      All this is certainly good, but with demography in our country there is no good. And it is impossible to raise it by slaughter methods such as "maternity capital" until the average salary in the country is about 30000 rubles. There is no money, about it all the same. And huge ones. Only not among ordinary citizens, who must "hold on".
      1. uskrabut
        uskrabut 13 September 2016 10: 00
        Quote: bandabas
        while the average salary in the country is about 30000

        Please clarify that this is according to official statistics, but in reality for citizens and 20000 - s / n oligarch
    2. Yeraz
      Yeraz 13 September 2016 11: 37
      Just understand Adolf didn’t attack Russia, but the USSR, whose population and resource base was 2 times that of Russia. The Russian Federation has 300 million people left ??? Oil, gas of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan that serve the Russian Federation ??
      Wake up the USSR at times with great potential was unable to bend the west, cut back to Russia even more so. Maximum local conflicts near the border.
      1. gringo
        gringo 13 September 2016 15: 13
        195 people lived on the territory of the USSR in 222. and for oil, after the Second World War, thousands of fields were discovered in Siberia,
        and about the potential, do not confuse the USSR of the 40s and the USSR of the 70s. Now the potential of Russia is much greater than the potential of the USSR 40s. I generally agree with you, but your argument has let us down.
        1. Yeraz
          Yeraz 13 September 2016 20: 24
          Quote: gringo
          195 people lived on the territory of the USSR in 222. and for oil, after the Second World War, thousands of fields were discovered in Siberia,

          What kind of strange logic do you have. Why compare the USSR of the 41st ?? Well, so we can remember 30 and the Russian Federation will be even stronger))))
          And as if in the countries of the Union, too, new oil and gas fields were discovered, and much more.
          My argument is normal. We compare the potential before the collapse even now. America has not lost this potential (it may have changed in places, since it lost the ability to compete with such a machine as the USSR, but it’s all multiplied). And Russia lost it in places, in places it destroyed and in places no way to return it (human resource, resource and industrial, since all this irrevocably went to new countries and some of them use it against the Russian Federation, like Ukraine.)
          Therefore, comparing the Russian Federation and the United States on a global scale is ridiculous, in the regional local it is still possible in some places. And no one has done anything to the economy.
          1. gringo
            gringo 23 September 2016 16: 29
            Just understand Adolf didn’t attack Russia, but the USSR, whose population and resource base was 2 times that of Russia. The Russian Federation has 300 million people left ??? Oil, gas of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan that serve the Russian Federation ??
            Wake up the USSR at times with great potential was unable to bend the west, cut back to Russia even more so. Maximum local conflicts near the border.

            I wrote it or something. the population of the USSR is 195 and the population of the Russian Federation is 222 where is the difference two times ?, the industry that was just being built and was in its infancy, and today's industry is also dead, of course, but it still is in contrast to the USSR of the 000s. what for. Russian oil and gas of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan? What is the strangeness of my logic, if I just pointed out to you the inaccuracy of your data. and it was not I who began to compare. and as for the absolute values ​​of the Russian Federation, it is not much weaker than the USSR of the late 146-000gg
      2. the most important
        the most important 13 September 2016 21: 48
        Quote: Yeraz
        Wake up the USSR at times with great potential was unable to bend the west, cut back to Russia even more so. Maximum local conflicts near the border.

        The conclusion is not true ... Not local conflicts along the border, but the restoration of Russia, at least at the border Russia + Ukraine + Belarus + Kazakhstan, and the rest still need the right to earn for entry.
        1. Retvizan
          Retvizan 14 September 2016 23: 47
          Quote: the most important
          and the restoration of Russia, at least in the border between Russia + Ukraine + Belarus + Kazakhstan

          How to do this, if all independent + conflict with the largest post-Soviet state (after the Russian Federation) with territorial claims? Yes, the Russian Federation will get bogged down in the post-Soviet swamp even more. And those resources that previously strengthened it and the human resource that united it are now against the Russian Federation.
    3. Nahum
      Nahum 13 September 2016 15: 00
      Quote: kartalovkolya
      Who comes to us with a sword, he

      ... will get screamed! How many times it was! No, they come to their senses, lick their wounds, forget the lessons of History and climb again. Conclusion: morons must be finished!
    4. weksha50
      weksha50 14 September 2016 11: 19
      "but do not forget that having the potential of all of Europe, first Napoleon, then the" possessed "Adolf, attacking Russia, eventually ended their days in the" ditch of History "! "...

      Unfortunately, the territories remained almost the same, but time has changed the capabilities of both ours and the potential enemy ...
      The territory and the military-industrial-economic-demographic potential do not play the role now, as in the days of Napoleon and Hitler, or Alexander and Stalin ...
  4. 3 Gorynych
    3 Gorynych 13 September 2016 06: 48
    "Reedus" found out how states are building up military force to prevent terrorist attacks in their territories.
    How does a regular army prevent terrorist attacks on its territory? Article about what? The author simply cited statistical calculations - but where is the conclusion ?! Or a proposal-to fight in a foreign territory, why ... My opinion article- does not carry useful information. IMHO
    1. jjj
      jjj 13 September 2016 10: 12
      There is also a passage about the British "interception" of our boat on the way to the English Channel. So this is "Stary Oskol" (project 636) on the surface with the escort tug went to the base of the Black Sea Fleet
  5. sevtrash
    sevtrash 13 September 2016 07: 15
    Tanks, aircraft carriers, planes are not a means of preventing terrorist attacks. This component acts later when / if they find a target. Therefore, the foregoing in the article does not fully reflect the ability to combat the terrorist threat, at least in terms of the armed forces.
    But the state / budget of special departments and forces certainly has an impact. In the USA, this is probably the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, etc. with total / subtotal control of cyberspace around the world, listening to and registering everything that can be reached by the analysis and action service. True, their condition also depends on the level of economic welfare of the state, so the leaders are the same.
  6. 501 Legion
    501 Legion 13 September 2016 08: 11
    if Russia has a budget as it is written here and still manage to buy new samples, develop, etc. then this, as for me, speaks of a more reasonable expenditure of funds. Now imagine if the budget would not be like that of the United States but 3-4 times higher than now. how much more could be done, investigated.
    naturally, without taking into account corruption and the rollback of a certain percentage of the budget into oblivion.
  7. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 13 September 2016 09: 00
    I am surprised that China has more submarines than ours. And indeed the number of ships. Quickly caught up. soldier
    1. Arshhan
      Arshhan 13 September 2016 10: 38
      in terms of quantity, he has long overtaken us and surpassed us in almost everything ... in quality there is another matter ... well, the strategic nuclear forces still slow them down, otherwise our Chinese friends would have long mastered Siberia and the Far East ...
  8. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 13 September 2016 09: 28
    A visible illustration of the indispensability of nuclear weapons.

    It would seem - nothing to reason. The United States (not to mention NATO) is able to crush Russia very quickly.
    But the battle. Neither aircraft carriers, nor fighters, nor military bases will help if the warheads begin to fall on the heads of gunners.

    We must increase the supply of this absolute weapon, the only guarantor of peace on Earth.
  9. Operator
    Operator 13 September 2016 09: 44
    The author, carried away by counting Moseks (tanks, planes and ships), did not notice the elephant - nuclear weapons bully
  10. ASDASD
    ASDASD 13 September 2016 09: 55
    "If we consider that more than 30 GPS satellites fly around the earth, then this number is already enough to track the movements of all the armies of a potential enemy."
    And how can you track the movement of an enemy army using a gps satellite?
  11. Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 13 September 2016 12: 10
    And why does the author not take into account strategic nuclear forces? And where does the number of the Russian army come from 760 thousand people? It seems that according to official data it is somewhat different? Or mechanically calculated the total strength of the three types of armed forces and forgot to include certain types of troops — the Strategic Missile Forces and Airborne Forces, as well as units and subdivisions that are not part of the types and separate types of troops?
    1. weksha50
      weksha50 13 September 2016 15: 14
      Sergej1972 Today, 12:10
      "Why doesn't the author take into account strategic nuclear forces?" And where does the number of the Russian army come from 760 thousand people?"...

      As of 2016, the army of Russia amounted to about 770 thousand people, which made it one of the largest in the world. Its annual budget amounted to 64 billion dollars and the third place on the planet in military spending.
      In addition, the Russian Federation is the leader in the number of nuclear warheads.

      ssii /

      However, in July 2016, President of Russia Vladimir Putin established the armed forces of the country in the amount of 1,885 million people, including 1 million military personnel.
  12. NEXUS
    NEXUS 13 September 2016 14: 35
    The author, either intentionally or not intentionally, did not include in his tables such moments as statistics on the Strategic Missile Forces, and the Kyrgyz Republic. And in vain, since these two points today determine the issue of stalling into the third world war.
    At the same time, the decisive fact of US security is not taken into account as the dollar, which, with its collapse, will destroy all the power of NATO beneath itself, regardless of oil, gas, military power and the number of bases.
    If he undertook to consider a question of this magnitude, then it would be necessary to carefully and broadly consider this topic.
  13. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 13 September 2016 19: 53
    The author does not take much into account. am

    For example, there is a large number of stationary atomic bombs in the United States, in the form of nuclear power units and spent nuclear fuel storage facilities. There is much more of both in the US than in Russia. And, as you know, modern "clean"Nuclear weapons, after an initial massive radioactive pulse, produce very little radioactive fallout. This amount cannot be compared with the billions of curies of radioactivity hidden in reactors and spent nuclear fuel. Therefore, any conventional war turns into a nuclear war, even if nuclear weapons are not used The usual Caliber destroys the cooling system of the nuclear power plant's reactor and, without any status-6, a vast zone of radioactive contamination appears, in which military and economic activity is impossible for a long time.
  14. Starik72
    Starik72 13 September 2016 23: 46
    I will write only one thing, both to the author of the article and to the commentators. You brothers have forgotten OUR most formidable weapon - "sapper shovel" !!! So that's it.
  15. Yak28
    Yak28 14 September 2016 07: 33
    Quote: Alf
    A simple hypothetical scenario.
    Russia and the United States clash in the war. Neither one nor the other side wants to use.

    In this situation, Russia does not shine, NATO’s vast superiority in human resources, and air equipment (I’m silent about the fleet) will allow the NATO to win. The Soviet Union also had a numerical superiority, Hitler sent kids to the front at the end of the war People’s resources were running out. And imagine your script today, all the rich artists, singers, civil servants and so on will hide children from Amiya and hide themselves, who in Russia, who is abroad. There are many volunteers today? Will there be soldiers in large cities? police on ezdam catch
    1. Dal arya
      Dal arya 15 September 2016 00: 22
      We will have to fight not by numbers but by cunning and skill. For example, look for China and North Korea as allies. In addition, if the state does not go to peace, it will have to be occupied and I doubt that all NATA will be able to occupy at least the European part of Russia. Coffins are tortured home send.
  16. Retvizan
    Retvizan 14 September 2016 23: 55
    the greatest potential of war is the economy. For a long time already wars are economic competitions. Moreover, there are already "hot and cold" phases of wars. The wars of the pre-information age are only on the periphery. Now, on the territory of developed countries, it is mainly the struggle of information media. And the weapon is just an argument. Everything is decided by money and an idea.
    Military capabilities are only part of the economy.
  17. Dal arya
    Dal arya 15 September 2016 00: 13
    Everything has been written about nuclear weapons for a long time that “nuclear winter” and “the death of all life” are nonsense. Moreover, I completely admit the situation that the war will last even after the use of nuclear weapons. It’s just like Einstein wrote, not with batons and machine guns and artillery there.