Read on Twitter
OP-ED: Problem with military strength ratings: Very innacurate. The problem arises when you realize that it doesn’t not take into account the:
1. Age of military technology
2. Counter-technologies
(Aircraft carrier is somehow superior to a submarine, or anti-naval missile sys.)
1. Age of military technology
2. Counter-technologies
(Aircraft carrier is somehow superior to a submarine, or anti-naval missile sys.)
3. Somehow, having a lot of planes and helicopters is superior to having tanks, which does not get counter-balanced by the amount of anti-aircraft weapon systems a country has, or their actual specifications
4. Military budget does not equate to strength/quality. Many have cheaper goods, of the same or higher quality, therefore spending more does not mean more of everything. This is dependent on economy and workforce cost/wages.
5. Money holds no value in war- when half the world denounces your currency.
6. Industrial capacity is always forgotten when these statistics are made. For example: China has 3.8 million factories compared to the US’s 350,000. (which during war are converted for military use.)
7. The size of cities is not taken into account. Every city would be used as a fortification.
8. Natural resources deposits are never taken into context. They would be used for the creation of highly potent weapons, like exploding ammunition, mustard gas and biological weapons
And the biggest factor: The fact that Western Europeans, Americans, Canadians and Australians are generally soft natured— while Eastern Europeans and Arabs are generally tough natured. (Will not need psychologists after a few explosions)
