Thank you for doing all the research that makes my case completely.

I followed you to nationmaster.com to fill in some of the numbers you
left off.  I found some numbers lacking, as you probably did.  Two of
them are fairly important in painting the image.  The first is the total
number of military aircraft in US inventory and the other is the total
military budget for Russia.  I estimate that in 2002, the US probably
had about 2500 aircraft in military service.  I also increased the
military budget for the US to $350B for 2002.  For Russia, I guesstimate
their military budget to be less than $30B as their total economy is
about the size of Holland's economy.

Let me start off by saying the number of people in service is a poor
measure of the real effectiveness of the military.  Sheer numbers do not
make a military.  That quaint notion died a gruesome death on the
battlefields of Belgium in 1916.

For most of the 20th and now the 21st century, having millions of people
in the armed forces and no money to buy equipment, provide training, and
supply weapons and ammunition is an exercise in stupidity.

In this day and age, force deployment and force projection are the keys
to the success of the mission.  You can have the best trained soldiers
with their personal weapons ready and available, however if you cannot
send them to the mission and if you cannot keep them supplied with the
needed "stuff," you have a "home guard," not a usable military.

Using your numbers, updated a little bit, one can readily see the US
spends $350B annually to fly 2500 planes and outfit and train about 1.2M
soldiers.  In this expense number, a good chunk is used to acquire new
weapons.

The next biggest military budget is China's, coming in a $56B.  That is
one seventh the US budget and it supports maybe the same amount of
planes and twice the manpower.  One can see there is not really a lot of
room for new weapons acquisition.  One could argue that soldiers are
cheaper in China, but as with most things, you get what you pay for in
military expenditure.

Continuing with your numbers, next up is France, coming in at $46B
supporting 577 aircraft and 294,000 soldiers.  One eight of the US
budget, supporting about one quarter of the planes and soldiers.  You
should also note that France has no long range bomber and very few if
any military cargo planes.  Further, over half the helicopter fleet is
grounded due to technical problems.  Also, France has been wasting a
good fraction of it defense budget on an aircraft carrier called the
"Charles de Gaulle."  Here is a link entitled "how not to build an
aircraft carrier," that you might enjoy.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2003127.asp

The French deleted their attack planes (Jaguar?) from their inventory
after Desert Storm.  They also found out that their vaunted AMX-30
didn't work well at all in Desert Storm.  They have since been trying to
field the AMX-40 and more recently the Leclerc, with mixed results.

Further, France insists on developing and producing all its weapons.
Whilst this may be good from an economic and national pride viewpoint,
it ensures the weapons will be much more expensive for the military to
acquire because of the lower number of units. (Can you say Rafale?) The
French do try to export a lot of weapons thus helping defray some of the
cost, but there is fierce competition and a (thankfully) shrinking
market and demand.

Also the social costs for a French soldier are very high.

Next up, Germany at $38.8B.  One ninth the budget for one sixth of the
planes and one sixth of the soldiers.  Whilst Germany has a very good
tank in the Leopard II, they have no money to really use it.  They have
no military cargo planes and no long range bomber.  What few planes they
have are old.  I believe the newest ones they have are the Tornado circa
1980 but they do not have any of the ground attack variant, though I am
willing to be corrected on that.  I believe they only have the Air
Defense variant and the electronic warfare version.  Their other planes
are all older. (Still waiting on the EuroFighter.)  The big problem with
the German armed forces is that the social costs of the soldiers are so
high, there is no money left in the budget to acquire weapons or provide
needed materiel.

Next up the UK at $31.7B.  One eleventh the US budget for one fifth of
the planes and one sixth of the soldiers. Again, the UK has no long
range bomber.  The last of the V-bombers were retired after the
Falklands war. (You might remember the missions called Black Buck One.
If you are not familiar, please look them up.  They were at that time,
the longest bombing missions in history.  That record held until Desert
Storm, when the initial attack on Iraq was made by B-52s flying from
Barksdale AFB, Louisiana and returning there.  34 hours in the air.  I
believe this was exceeded by the B-2 bombers in the Kosovo fracas and
more recently Iraqi Freedom.)

At any rate, the UK has been using cheaper and more efficient planes
like the Tornado, both the Ground attack and the Air Defense variants
and a whole line of Harriers.  The latter are not supersonic per se but
are very economical and quite good.  Gone are the days of the Phantom II
and the EE Lightning and the Victor, Valiant and Vulcan.  For cargo, I
understand the UK is buying C-17 from the US.  They have also quite a
fleet of Lockheed Hercules.  Buying off the shelf is cheaper in the long
run.

Finally Russia at an estimated $30B.  I still think that figure is too
high, but let's be generous.  This represents one twelfth of the US
budget for around the same number of plane and soldiers.  Since the
disappearance of the USSR, and it slave labor tactics, there simply has
been no money for the military.  The planes are not flying and are
rotting away.  The pilots that remain may get to fly once every few
months, hardly enough to stay proficient.  There is no money for
training or for replacement equipment for all the soldiers.  The Navy
has parked virtually all its ships and submarines, there is no money to
operate them.

As I said, if it weren't for its nuclear weapons, which are being
destroyed, Russia would not be any type of force.  They can't even take
care of Chechnya, let alone send tens of thousands of troops to another
country.

Face it, apart from the UK, and even then it strains them to do so, no
country in Europe as an effective military.  They could not even take
care of Milosevic, who was right next door.  There is no way France or
Germany or Russia would have gone to Iraq.  There was no way and we knew
that.

You might also have heard about the attempt to create a pan-European
force.  That can't even get off the ground; there is simply no money to
do that.

And finally I of course, disagree with you.  The UK has the finest
military in Europe.  They have superior training and leadership.  They
may not have the most equipment or even the best equipment in certain
cases, but what they have they use very well and they spend their money
wisely.  In most cases.  :-)

Again thanks for supplying the numbers.

Denys

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *