Modern Major Powers and Standing Armies

[dalem]

The UK fatboy thread got me thinking real quick, so here's a simple question that might be interesting to bat around:

Is it possible to be (or remain) a major power on the planet without maintaining a large and capable standing army in peacetime?

Here in the U.S. our Founding Fathers would have shuddered at the idea of what we have today, military-wise, but rapid and instinctive post-war disarmaments have only led to problems. So I think the answer to my question is a resounding "HELL NO!"

What say you?

-dale

[Bill]

The UK fatboy thread got me thinking real quick, so here's a simple question that might be interesting to bat around:

Is it possible to be (or remain) a major power on the planet without maintaining a large and capable standing army in peacetime?

Here in the U.S. our Founding Fathers would have shuddered at the idea of what we have today, military-wise, but rapid and instinctive post-war disarmaments have only led to problems. So I think the answer to my question is a resounding "HELL NO!"

What say you?

-dale

It depends.

On Geography your neighbors and on what kind of 'major power' you wish to be.

The Swiss are a modern economic power, surrounded by friendly states, with virtually unassailable national boundries, thus, no real need for a large army(though they really ought to have a much more credible air force).

[troung]

Is it possible to be (or remain) a major power on the planet without maintaining a large and capable standing army in peacetime?

Depends on what you want of your army. If you want to send troops constantly to protect your "interests" in other nations and so forth then you might not need a terribly large army but will need a capable one that is large enough to handle your needs possibly at the same time in different places. If you want to prop up the odd African dictator and remove ones you get tired of and there is no 1000lb gorilla on your back then you probably don't need a 500k man army.

If your army is just to protect your nation itself and you have friendly borders then you don't need a large one either in peace time, just have it ready to expand and have a pool of ready conscripts.

If there is a 1000lb gorilla on your back then the large army in peacetime is what you do.

Here in the U.S. our Founding Fathers would have shuddered at the idea of what we have today, military-wise, but rapid and instinctive post-war disarmaments have only led to problems. So I think the answer to my question is a resounding "HELL NO!"

Post war disarmaments allow people to go back in and contribute to the economy. A large army can be just as easily a drain on the economy.

[BFD15]

It depends.

On Geography your neighbors and on what kind of 'major power' you wish to be.

The Swiss are a modern economic power, surrounded by friendly states, with virtually unassailable national boundries, thus, no real need for a large army(though they really ought to have a much more credible air force).

I would agree with M21Sniper. Canada would be a prime example of Geography and friendly neighbors. A G-8 economy overflowing with natural resources and with a small armed forces due to the only country capable of attack being its closest ally.

[Tronic]

Doesn't Canada have some border disputes with America??? in the North...

[dalem]

I don't consider Canada to be a Major Power. Hmm. Perhaps my definitions define my question away. ;)

-dale

[BFD15]

;) What do you consider one of the top economies in the world ? with the second largest land mass on the planet, with one of the highest standard of living in the world, with the fifth largest proven oil reserves and a plethera of other natural resources that the rest of the world including the United States rely on.
Other than the U.S there is really no other military power. What countries would you classify as major powers? And on what basis?


Any disputes between Canada and the U.S are settled in a civil manner in the courts . There is probably not any two countries in the world that interact in a closer relationship than America and America jr. It probably stems from our shared heritage.

[Tronic]

Other than the U.S there is really no other military power.

I beg to differ... to correct your statement here... other then the U.S., there is no other superpower.... there are plenty of military powers in the world... U.S. is just the top one...

What countries would you classify as major powers? And on what basis?

Strong economy, Strong military and a whole lot of political leverage.

Any disputes between Canada and the U.S are settled in a civil manner in the courts .

Actually, the disputes are still ongoing... The U.S. considers the Northern Pass as international waters and Canada I believe considers them to be Canadian territory. The only way to settle this would be either America gives up its claim that the Northern Part is international waters (which seems very unlikely that US will do that.) OR Canada gives up its claim to the North, (which I highly doubt Canada will freely give up territory which it claims to be hers).

There is probably not any two countries in the world that interact in a closer relationship than America and America jr. It probably stems from our shared heritage.

Thats probably true... And its probably because America pretty much already owns Canada, using its economy.

[dalem]

Mmm, fair point. Canada has power projection that truly makes a difference.

Maybe I'm too ignorant of other nations' histories to frame the question properly. I know that a standing army was anathema to OUR Founding Fathers, but I have little understanding of what was the norm for the early 19th century powers. Wasn't it Napoleon, and his large "citizen armies", that spurred the other Great Powers to create large forces? Did the sizes wax and wane with every war?

-dale

[zraver]

Actually, the disputes are still ongoing... The U.S. considers the Northern Pass as international waters and Canada I believe considers them to be Canadian territory. The only way to settle this would be either America gives up its claim that the Northern Part is international waters (which seems very unlikely that US will do that.) OR Canada gives up its claim to the North, (which I highly doubt Canada will freely give up territory which it claims to be hers).

The dispute has alot to do with Global warming, if the ice melts the mythical northwest passage opens up. This could be a huge seaborne highway and the tax/tariff figures are staggering.

The US and Canada will settle it as they always do, in court or via treaty that leaves both sides unhappy.

The US and Canada are always sueing each other in court, softlumber, salmon, grain, borders etc. But each side trust sthe legal systme to decide the issue, somethign for India and Pakistan to look at.

[troung]

Maybe I'm too ignorant of other nations' histories to frame the question properly. I know that a standing army was anathema to OUR Founding Fathers, but I have little understanding of what was the norm for the early 19th century powers. Wasn't it Napoleon, and his large "citizen armies", that spurred the other Great Powers to create large forces? Did the sizes wax and wane with every war?

The armies got smaller after Nap in an attempt to put the geine back into the bottle on revolutionary large scale warfare. Writers like Jomini who preached small scale wars grew in popularity from the conservative rulers and their military thinkers. Jomini was writing at the time when people wanted to forget about what had happened and roll back the clock.

They made a delibrate shift to go back to pre Nap warfare, limited scale dynastic clashes. They hoped to put the lid back on all of the evil things from the French revolution like nationalism, republicism and large armies feeding off their crops.

[astralis]

dalem,

Mmm, fair point. Canada has power projection that truly makes a difference.

Maybe I'm too ignorant of other nations' histories to frame the question properly. I know that a standing army was anathema to OUR Founding Fathers, but I have little understanding of what was the norm for the early 19th century powers. Wasn't it Napoleon, and his large "citizen armies", that spurred the other Great Powers to create large forces? Did the sizes wax and wane with every war?

-dale

not really. the british did quite well with a small standing army, and the germans needed until the 1860s to organize something along those lines.

a large standing army needed nationalism, logistics, state capability, and resources. nationalism was anathema for most of the european states until the uprisings and revolutions of 1830 and 1848 started to convince rulers that it was force that could not be denied, and actually had benefits.

and later consolidation of both government and nation throughout the 19th century gave them logistics, state capability, and resources.

the large armies that confronted napoleon were fairly hastily put together.

[Officer of Engineers]

not really. the british did quite well with a small standing army, and the germans needed until the 1860s to organize something along those lines.

That's a myth. Once you add in the Colonial Regiments, especially India's, then the Brits ground strength was not all that small.

[astralis]

That's a myth. Once you add in the Colonial Regiments, especially India's, then the Brits ground strength was not all that small.

it was relatively small compared to the amount of territory and number of people they lorded over. kitchener's pre-WWI indian army was 150K troops, most of whom were, well, indian. and india had what, around 250 million people at the time.

[glyn]

it was relatively small compared to the amount of territory and number of people they lorded over. kitchener's pre-WWI indian army was 150K troops, most of whom were, well, indian. and india had what, around 250 million people at the time.

The British Empire copied the Roman Empire quite slavishly (because they admired their achievements so) including creating army units from the local population and installing British officers and some NCOs. It was the Royal Navy the government spent the most money on, and it was the largest, most modern and powerful navy in the world for over 100 years.