[..] the majority of attempts to measure military power are focused on tabulations such as number of men and women under arms, the number of airplanes, ships, and tanks in service, and percentage changes in annual (publicly available) defense budgets. This approach is best exemplified by the annual yearbook on military spending, compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). In that regard, the yearbook numbers are useful to some degree but it actually tells us very little about the military strengths of the countries evaluated (the books do contain some analysis).
Looking at the availability of supply bases in a region, transport capacity, and other logistical considerations, along with an assessment of training methods, a force’s esprit de corps, officer to non-commissioned officer to enlisted men ratios, the number of institutes for higher military studies (staff colleges), command and control systems, and military doctrine, we may form a sharper image of a particular military force.
However, this singular tunnel vision obviously neglects the dialectical nature of warfare, i.e., the interaction between two opposing forces and how the actions of one side shapes the actions of the other during a prolonged period of military conflict; as well as the relative nature of military competition: The strengths of one military force can only be assessed relative to another military force.[..]
Andrew “Yoda” Marshall, head of an internal Pentagon think tank – Office of Net Assessment
vara bungas: Tas par ko ir runa pirmajā rindkopā patīk politiķiem un ģenerāļiem – ņemam ciparus un salīdzinam, kam vairāk, tas pretendents uz uzvaru. Tas par ko runa otrajā rindkopā nodrošina labas militārās izlūkošanas analītiķi – tā tam jābūt, bet tas par ko ir runa trešajā rindkopā dara reti kura valsts, jo tām nav tik augsta līmeņa ekspertu kā A.Maršals.
vara bungas 
Draudu nav.