Message from @Joshu
Discord ID: 632599627551473664
Very surprised by that @Nathan James 123
Tanks, upgrades to their existing platforms
Check page 26
There is a thing with russia not alot of people realise
they have the same military budget as us give or take
but tout MANY MANY more tanks etc
which means their military is likely at a much lower readiness level
and/or maintenance level
that was a hug issue with russian sub in the Cold War
They started quiet but got loud due to poor maintenance
Ehh, this 'power' scale isn't very good
36 sorry
not 26
ah that makes sense
"This resulted in the “Composite Index of national Capability”,comprised of six key indicators – Population (PO), urban Population (uP), Iron and SteelProduction (ISP), Primary Energy Production (PEP), Military Expenditure (ME) and MilitaryPersonnel (MP)"
This accounts for power in long-term conflicts
Not short-term as most will be.
Long term are the ones that matter
They're not, because they're the least-likey to happen
The world wars.
Short term are typically anti terror
proxy wars etc
Of which, will result in nuclear conflict if they happened
no no @Joshu
If the US got into a fight with china it would not be short term
Short term is Russia invading the Baltics and taking them within 2-3 weeks.
What is the timescale for short and long in your opinions though as you may be arguing about two different points
Either way, I think the metric is good
Short-term as most conflicts are last a year maximum, long-term more than that
Long-term is where you see mss mobilization
However if you look at page 29
And where this matters
You can see the overall scores
is that a year of combat or also post combat stabilisation?
Which take into account everything about a country
One thing I can say about that scale at least is that it shows how much the continentals need to up their game, bunch of pussys
Yeah this report is really dedicated to long-term conflicts
The UK is also the current leader in Portland's "The soft power 30 report 2018"
Up from 2nd in 2015