Talk:List of countries by Military Strength Index

Another example of dishonesty of western agencies to push forward their agenda

This is another shameless list of countries which does not reflect any reality. For example North Korea is absent from the list to boost morale of South Korea and Taiwan has been included to scare China, as if China will be scared by these useless lists. In any kind of war North Korea can turn South Korea into ashes but somehow this dishonest institute Credit Suisse thinks North Korea's inclusion is not necessary. Honesty cannot be expected from these people. If an institute thinks inclusion of a country with world's third or fourth largest military and possessing nuclear weapons is not necessary then where do you put that institute? 神话克星 (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources?

What is this list based off? Many other lists of this type have a completely different order. For example, here, Japan is listed as #4 while South Korea and many other countries, in reality, have a much larger and well maintained military. How is Japan more powerful than India? Or how about the inclusion of North Korea? North Korea despite their corruption and laughable nuclear threats, actually are a notable power, boasting submarines, fighter jets, and well over 7,000,000 military troops. Other countries, like Vietnam who have a huge amount of manpower and equipment are not listed either.

I also just checked the source. They ranked Canada as #20 because of their efforts in the middle east. A military's efforts and goals should have nothing to do with their "power" if they lack manpower and equipment. This article overall feels very shady, considering that "any changes to the list count as vandalism." Isn't the point of this website supposed to be a knowledge base that everyone can add too?

War result

Surely the only realistic criteria that count is whether a specific military would win in a war against another. So according to the list Egypt would beat Israel and Italy would beat the UK. Any intelligent person knows the opposite results would occur, which makes the list meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.33.209.134 (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

someone can clarify the Publication of Credit Suisse? This page was created by the Publication that Credit Suisse did last year, next week there will be new data of this year ( I thought), that does not mean that some people will take possesion of this page, breaking the rules publishing the list of Global fire page that don't have anything to do with the publication of credit suisse !. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiPortaro29 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2016

Deepu9863 (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC) This is a list of countries by Military Strength Index based on The factors under consideration for military strength and their total weights are: number of active personnel in the army (5%), tanks (10%), attack helicopters (15%), aircraft (20%), aircraft carriers (25%), and submarines (25%). does not account for the actual training that the militaries may have.The 10 strongest militaries ranked 2016

==List==

Rank	Country/Territory	Power Index
1	United States	0.0897
2	Russia	0.0964
3	China	0.0988
4	India	0.1661
5	France	0.1993
6	United Kingdom	0.2164
7	Japan	0.2466
8	Turkey	0.2623
9	Germany	0.2646
10	Italy	0.2724

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

A Joke

... not only but an copyright violation, because its simply a copy of the data table of the Credit Suisse Report. The second reference given (businessinsider.com) is in some way even more funny, thoug it only referes the Data of the Credit Suisse Report.

Original source is the SIPRI Institute, why do we use a Report oft that, a tertiary source, and an online artikle over the Report of the source? It would have been helpful to check this data, before simply copying them. For example: Have you recognized that in this data table Indonesia gets a bonus in military strength because its Aircraft Carrier? Ok, its a state of many Islands, so a Carrier seems to be of some military value. But Indonesia don not own a single operational Airplane for this Carrier!

To make it even worse the komment of the table given in the report was eliminated, that shows at least a few aspects of the huge problem of any ranking of this kind (how can you compare the military strength of Hungary or Swizerland while naval forces are given 50 % of any countries strength, but these countries have no coast at all?). Without the basic informations of the why and how of this Data, they are dangerously misleading.

Conclusion: Sad to say for the ones that take the duty to write this down but this artikle can't be taken seriously! WerWil (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi WerWil I agree with you that this list is not ideal since it is based on parameters which are not necessarily sound. Unfortunately, it bases this on SIPRI and Global Firepower. Now I did check SIPRI and they do not publish a military strength index list. Do you have another reliable source which is better than Credit Suisse (say IISS or another international organization/think-thank)? If yes I am happy to consider replacing this list. But unless we have a better source this seems to be the best we have, even though it is not ideal. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have any ohter sources. But I know that SIPRI still publishes yearbooks and rankings. May be not for free on the internet.

But if this is the best we have and we can't make it far better in short time, it should be deletet. In this way its awfully misleading ranking rubbish.WerWil (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WerWil If you do believe that this page should be deleted since it is misleading, I would welcome you to start a deletion process. Please have a look at WP:XFD and what it entails. Basically, you will nominate this for discussion and a bunch of Wikipedia editors(including myself) will discuss it's merits based on the points you have raised. I am not sure how I feel about this article either way but it would be interesting to see how it turns out. Hope this helps. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see there are people out there who make no attempt to improve Wikipedia and instead use talk pages as a soapbox. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador: Sorry, I am just trying to reply to points raised by another editor. It is upto them to have a constructive discussion. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

\ INDIA HAS THE BEST ARMIES AND WHY IS NORTH KOREA NOT UP THERE THEY DO HAVE A PRETTY STRONG ARMY IF NOT THEN WHY ARE WE SCARED OF THEM SO MUCH SO I THINK NORTH KOREA SHOULD BE UP THERE. 141.126.20.95 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - this list is solely based on the Credit Suisse report. It is not about anyone's personal opinion. The list cannot be changed. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)