France became the 9th military power, behind Pakistan, how could it fall so low in only 2 years?

[Julie4]

[nightdrot]

Well, the problem is that the metric for making the rankings is unknown and, in fairness, is to some degree subjective. Bluntly, this may be more a measurement of numbers than of actual capabilities.

Measured in terms of sheer numbers, Pakistan is bound to outrank France. Indeed, the West as a whole - the USA included - is in decline by that minimal standard. The Western world is aging and, over time the workforce and military recruiting age population is declining relative to states like China, India and Pakistan.

However, this is actually a poor metric. France is likely far ahead in the quality of its' manpower, the size of its' economy - and thus its' domestic defense industries, the sophistication of its' arsenals, including its' nuclear arsenals.

These standards matter and, in point of fact, not sure where you found the rankings that put France in 9th place, but that is likely a gross underestimation of France's actual capabilities, not to mention its' potential. This not even taking into account the size and technological sophistication of the French economy.

The parallel - not exact, but close - is between Japan and the USA in the pre-WWII era. Going in, Japan had the larger, because fully mobilized, military. It even had a slight edge in weapons technology - see also the Zero fighter plane, as Japan had been investing more in its' armed forces than had the USA to that time.

However, these immediate advantages hid the USA's latent strengths and Japan's shortcomings. Once Japan attacked the USA and the latter fully mobilized, Japan could not keep up. Over the long run, the USA was the bigger power.

That is - without being able to examine the basis on which the rankings were made - what is happening here between France and Pakistan. The latter, because mobilized has an immediate advantage. Yet there is little doubt that, measured against its full potential, France was and remains the bigger power.

[Julie4]

I agree with you, several people have pointed out to me that Globalefirepower's ranking is more than dubious.

Your example of Japan and the USA is interesting, because I wonder why, following the first world war, the USA agreed to intentionally limit the tonnage of their navy. I think that if, following the first world war, the USA hadn't limited their maritime capacities, the Japanese would have seen the real power of the USA, and would surely have had doubts before attacking them.

[nightdrot]

In regards to your last point, Japan was actually part of those naval limitation agreements. The USA advocated them because - coming out of World War I - the USA was an ideological power. It argued that the adoption of democratic methods, the reduction of military spending and other such "reforms" would conduce to a more peaceful world order and thus avoid a repetition of World War I.

The irony is that the First World War was NOT an ideological war, but rather a Westphalian conflict centered on the balance of power, spheres of influence and the like. The entry of the USA into the war, plus the Russian Revolution and the rise of Fascism and National Socialism turned the war - by the end - into more of an ideological contest.

Thus, the Second World War - and the Cold War after it - were ideological contests. (For a practical application, imagine how the world would have looked had Germany won the First World War as against how it would have looked had Germany won the Second World War. Same countries, similar military conflicts, yet VERY different outcomes for the global order,)

Bottom line, after World War I and through the 1920s, thanks largely to President Wilson - author of the Fourteen Points - Americans believed that a world based on their values and principles would be a more peaceful and stable world. So they adopted - and advocated that others adopt - policies consistent with those principles.

Thus the naval arms limitation treaties - and also the Kellogg/Briand pact outlawing war - that shaped the 1920s and 30s. It was only when discontented powers like Japan, Germany and Italy began to "slip the leash" of those pacts that problems and disparities followed. Hence, WWII.

[RavVid]

Gobal Fire Power says it has changed its algorithms and part of Pakistan's is due to an increased focus on natural resources (gas and coal).

I'm doubtful GFP rankings pass the pub test. It is all very well to have 60 metrics but is Russia actually #2 and very close to the US. It's performance in Ukraine indicates it isn't as close a 0.0714 vs US 0.0712. I'd also doubt Russia is more powerful than China at 0.0722.

I'm not quite ready to say the GFP index is BS but not far off it.

[Julie4]

I agree with you. In fact, resources are an essential criterion, and they were right to take them into account. But this ranking really sucks, the USA is far ahead of any other country, and like you I rank Russia behind China, because China also has very significant resources, plus it has an economy that allows it to bear the cost of a war.

[RavVid]

Yes, Russia logically should be rated slightly above or below Ukraine.

Where this sucks is that it is excessively war gamed. What I mean by this is combatants get points for lets say morale and maybe lose morale points through combat and become less effective. So I think GFP is applying war game technique to the real world in a probably unrealistic nontransparent way. They are not making their 60 metrics known so we can't independently assess.

It is all very well factoring in natural resources. But natural gas and coal aren't used by military forces - petroleum is. Natural gas and coal could be important for industrial support of the military but is the amount of heavy industry a factor of their rating of countries. We simply don't know.

Lets just rate GFP as BS.

[Soteris]

First of all, France would fucking body Pakistan in an actual war so your measurement of military power is wrong. Secondly, why on earth would you want a strong military when you dont need one to defend your country? A military during peace times just sits there and eats up resources that could be spent on education, healthcare or whatever else you want. You know, things of actual value to the people paying taxes.

Unless you believe that France needs to use its military in the next few years then the closer to zero you can push that "military power" the better quite frankly.

[abc3643]

I assume you are talking about this:
www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php

France doesn't have the number of people that Pakistan has. I wouldn't worry about it. France has nuclear weapons and submarines and is a NATO member. Also, unlike 250 years ago, France has no natural enemies now that Western and Central Europe are more or less allied and integrated. This is unlike Pakistan which has always had issues with India which outnumbers Pakistan and is higher on the military power chart. If it's any consolation, Pakistan, at #7, is above #8 Japan as well. Anyway, don't worry about it. Canada is 27th and they don't worry about it.

[abc3643]

Read these two summaries:
www.globalfirepower.com/...ary-strength-detail.php
www.globalfirepower.com/...ary-strength-detail.php

[Jersey2]

Canada doesn’t worry about it because they have the USA on their border who won’t let anyone become a threat in their northern border. Canada thought is a bad Allie in Nato as they are not doing their share which is the same for Germany.

[abc3643]

@Jersey2 Canada does what it can. Members could step up though, but Canada is not a large country by population. Canada will become increasingly important in the coming decades as the Artic Ocean becomes a major theater of concern. In fact, the Wall Street Journal was just reporting on that.

www.wsj.com/.../americas-military-falls-behind-russia-china-race-for-melting-arctic-2a71dfac
TITLE: America’s Military Trails Russia and China in Race for the Melting Arctic
SUBTITLE: U. S. is competing with a partnership between the two countries but has fewer icebreakers and ports, and less experience

[Jersey2]

Small, medium, large. 2% is 2%. Canada says it will never reach it but other countries, even small countries, are because they understand the consequences. Canada has decided it just doesn’t have to so it won’t. Given Canada and Germany, I would want the US to turn back to isolationism, build our economy, build trade, create technology, explore space and keep ourselves safe with a top notch defensive force and nuclear weapons. F the world. Even F Canada, who needs friends like these. F the artic too, not our problem, none of it. Just turn to isolationism if the world won’t band together.

[DarkWinterNights]

Military and police in the western world have become political pawns. It’s become so divisive people don’t have a very strong patriotic bond with their country. France is probably the first country in Europe that will lose its cultural identity but it won’t be the last.

[Soteris]

Considering the cultural heritage of France is to be massive assholes to the rest of the world I dont quite see this as a bad thing.

[Guanfei]

We have a president that is doing everything in his power to make sure France isn't an independent and sovereign state anymore. Including ruining its military.
Je wants us dependant on the EU, and NATO. That's a globalist president for you.

[Berethor]

France is overrun by crap from the Third World, so France is going to fall more and more.

[Avicenna]

Military power isn't all it's cracked up to be. Economic power is much more useful.

[exitseven]

Maybe Pakistan bought a lot of the weapons that Biden left in Afghanistan

[OddBeMe]

1) not a big deal
2) the entire EU and NATO still #1.
3 ) …I don’t know. Care about keeping fascist out of power.

[RyanEC]

Your weak leadership.
Hopefully Macron will fall and a new leader will rise.

[KrakenAttackin]

Leftists.