Talk:List of countries by number of active troops

Um, the validity of this page is definately in question. For starters, China is by far the country with the most active military personnell, not the US. This page needs to be completely reworked as it is horribly innaccurate. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddyhaarz (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

SOMEBODY PLEASE FIX THE PAGE. TABLES ARE ALL OUT OF ORDER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eptes (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Hi, sorry but this rankink of countries by number of active troops has a main error.

Canada doesn't have 420 000 people in his army and is not 11th in the world. Anyway, if you get further down the list, you'll see the more acurate rank for canada as it stands 61th...Which is more like it...

Thanks...

Daniel

Request: Quite a few of the numbers in the table have a reference link that could be used to locate the source of the information. Unfortunately, not all numbers are derived in that manner. Readers are encouraged to update the table below if they are capable of doing so with references where the uncited numbers can have sources associated with them. See Citing sources for more information.

Wow... way to go Iran
Basji which is a civil defence force is counted. I think either Basji number be removed or add civil defense forces be added to all nations list. It is better to remove Basji and other civil defence forces from the list rather than add all the population numbers.

Chanakyathegreat 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so because basj is classifide by Iran as their paramillitary

The numbers cited for Iran's Basji are highly suspect. The estimate of 11 million comes from the Iranian General in charge of this force who would have a vested interest in providing a deceptive count (these are the same people who claim the American military is weak in comparison to their own and would easily be defeated in battle which we all know is not true). In addition to this the same article provides another estimate of approximately 400,000 with the ability to activate up to 1 million by tapping student populations. I think this number should be revised.

Also of note is most of these Basji are old men and young children which further puts in to question the legitimacy of the claim. Macutty 02:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

America can't even beat Iraq so I think the Iranian generals are wright if they say that Amerrica can't beat them eighter, and Israel lost in a war with Hezbollah a group of only a few 100 fighters wich have got Iranian weapons so how will they be able to beat Iran itself, Hezbollah only had a few Iranian rockerts and had them to withdrew in a few weeks, Iran has hundreds of those rockets so imagine how quick they would have Israel to withdraw. Iran might not be military superior to the complete US army in straight combat but in defence they could beat the US coallition that is send to Iran, They could definetly beat the US force of 140,000 soldiers in Iraq wich are wright now losing to a few Iraqi insurgens. So if they can't beat Iraq Hezbollah or even Afganistan than ther is now way they van beat Iran. Kermanshahi 07:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Stay on topic, please. Also, the numbers for the force were completely bogus. There are 2 sources now that have corrected it.— DMCer ™  11:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

17% of the entire Iranian population is in the armed forces?! That 11 million figure is bogus. The source even says it's estimated at 400,000. I'm going to "be bold" and change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.254.68 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This 11 million paramilitary number is completely impossible. The source looks like crap for one thing... how can you have a population of 70 million people in peacetime have 11 million as paramilitary? Every able-bodied person is training to create a giant orc horde? Someone please find a real number. 129.97.223.69 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Iran is not superior to the U.S. on military might or strength also if your going to argue about the U.S. do it in your Haji language not in English because I don't want to hear that crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.200.240 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Article title
"Amount" of active troops??? I really think that should be "number". - Randwicked 09:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Moved. - Randwicked 07:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * the meaning of active troops is also somewhat open to interpretation as an English phrase. It has a formal meaning in an American context, so I understand, but is that really comparable to other states armed forces ? For example, the French Navy personnel establishment includes the (effectively) civilian fire-fighting force for Marseilles. Anyway, any proposal along the lines of removing the 'active troops' designation would no doubt be met with a lot of "well lots of people know what it means" messages from (principally) Americans, so I'll content myself with just making this note.--jrleighton 10:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Iran is not superior to the U.S. on military might or strength also if your going to argue about the U.S. do it in your Haji language not in English because I don't want to hear that crap.

Please stop
Whoever keeps adding the vatican, please stop. They do not have any independent troops. And, rememember this page is sourced by the World Almanac, which does not mention any troops in the Vatican. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Vatican does have a security force and Swiss Guards on loan and many armoured Pope Mobiles Dudtz 8/20/05 4:04 PM EST

Should we not add the Vatican at the bottom of the list/whereever appropriate if we can get a source for their zero troops/small amount of troops.202.161.15.101 (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

TROOPS
Excuse me,but i think that in this article there's something wrong. In the list are mentioned 161 countries,while the countries in the world are 193. Now,from the article "List of countries without an army" we know that 14 countries have not an army. Total,175 countries. But 18 countries are missing : they are Bhutan,Iraq, Maldive Islands,Comoros,Mauritius,Sao Tome and Principe,Somalia,Swaziland, Dominica,Grenada,Saint Kitts and Nevis,Saint Lucia,Saint Vincent and Grenadine,Solomon Islands,Samoa,Tonga,Tuvalu,Vanuatu. Why don't these countries are included in the list?


 * The World Almanac doesn't list any armies for these nations. It's quite possible they are too small. Iraq and Somalia for example dont even have a functioning government yet, or are in transition. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 17:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I added a link at the bottom of the article to the "List_of_countries_without_an_army" article. It certainly seems relevant to point out that not all countries actually have a standing army. MMad 21:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"In Thousands" Vs. "In Millions"
It is quite confusing to list the number of active troops in thousands. No one thinks of 1,000,000 (one million) troops as 1000 x 1000 (one thousand times one thousand). I believe it would be in order to change the list from the "in thousands" system to the "in millions" systems. -- Mb1000 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)
 * Well most people understand that "in thousands" means "followed by 3 zeros". -- Earl Andrew - talk 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

But doesn't "in millions" make more sense? --Mb1000 23:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No, because you will have a lot more numbers after the decimal point. You might as well just put the whole number in. For example, turkey's troops "in millions" would say 	0.51485. Antigua and Barbuda would be at 0.00017. Does this seem reasonable to you? -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You do have a point. --Mb1000 17:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Not enough countries have numbers of troops in the millions so it is pointless to make that the standard unit. It will only complicate things. - I_Am_Canadian529 23:21, 13 February 2006

Order
Sorrry, but isn't the order a little wrong? For example, the list says America has some 1.4 million troops, and Russia around 1.7 million, but America is listed first. Same with India and North Korea. I didn't want to change it, because I might just be making a stupid mistake.


 * Anonymous bumped Russia up the list but mixed up the rankings. I've reverted the last changes until someone can justify the higher figure for Russia. - Randwicked 17:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Russia has 960,000 troops, not 1.7 million. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Russia has 1.13 million look here

http://mosnews.com/mn-files/army.shtml

Also, it seems that Canada is out of order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.15.222 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Deng 12.05 CET jan 14 2006

Also, it seems that Canada is out of order.

Source?
Can I know what is the source for this data.. According to this forbes article, the Indian Army is the 2nd largest !! --User:Deepak gupta 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Try looking at the bottom where it says "source" ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there any agreed-upon way for citing information that isn't from the World Almanac? Tabun1015 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The EU
Is it possible for someone to figure out the ranking for the EU in Toto? Much appreciated if you can :) Sri Theo 23:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No because it does not have a military. User:Daniel_Chiswick 23 March, 2007

It does, sort of...it is like NATO in a way, it can call up on troops from countries and does.

The EU Does not yet have an army, and the failure of all previous joint military efforts means it is not likly too, and anyway, NATO Includes countries outside of the EU.

Article cleaned up
Changes:
 * links to military for every country
 * more consistent, less verbose use of flag templates
 * various typo fixes
 * standardized whitespace in source for readability
 * active troops per 1000 added for every country
 * cleanup tag removed

If there is anything else that needs to be done, please mention here...

Brianski 08:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit War / page protection
It seems to me the subject of this Edit war was new information vs. the cited information.

Could this not be resolved by merely saying something like:

Unless otherwise noted,
 * Source of active duty information: World Almanac, 2005
 * Source of population information: List of countries by population

And having a series of footnotes for information from newer sources?

Also, it strikes me that when there are divergent estimates of active duty information, we should make the figure a range, as has already been done for some countries due to uncertainty, and adjust rank, etc. appropriately.

Is this an acceptable way to move forward?

Brianski 03:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, as long as everything is cited. Unfortunately, the vandals (whether well intentioned or not) did not cite anything. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Brianski is right, that should be the information from other sources is used also. Roitr specified a site of the Ministry of Defence of Russia and according to him in Russia 1,140,000 active troops. In my opinion of more exact information concerning number of active troops in Russia cannot give any other source. Therefore this information should be in this list as it the most exact and is received from the primary source. - Tt1 11:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No actual source was given. I think it is only fair that you review ALL ministry of defence websites before changing this list. Otherwise, inconsistencies will arise. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Site of the Ministry of Defence of Russia it's very much actual source for Russia. It not really to check up all of a site of the Ministries of Defence of all countries, because of that that on it a lot of time is requiredand not all sites have the English version. But those data which are checked already up it is necessary to write in this list. I have a Big Encyclopaedic Oxford Directory and in it many data differ from yours data given from World Almanac, and on this source for an example in Russia 1,160,000 of active troops-it is similar on given written by Roitr. Wikipedia-it is Encyclopaedia, but not a World Almanac copy and in it there should be more exact data if they are available. Please change the data about Russia in the list to more exact and correct. - Tt1 16:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, consistency is warranted. Please provide links for every Ministry of Defence. We cannot have one source for one country and one for all others. That is POV in favour of Russia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting
It's been 2 weeks. Long enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging
I'm new, I don't know the command to suggest a merge, but this article should definately be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops in some way. Or at least linked to it. - Anonomous User


 * Huh? They are the same pages. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I meant this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces

- Anonomous User, 1/28/06

Sorting
There should also be some sorting options. The media always uses rankings such as the commonly repeated line "at the time of the gulf war Iraq had the world's 4th largest land army", but sometimes they say 3rd. Obviously the size of a land army is much different than the size of the total armed forces, particularly if you're counting officers and non-combat personell. The U.S. military may be 1.5 million strong, but the U.S. army is not even a third that size. There should be different lists sorted by size of land army (number of boots on the ground), navies (sorted by number and classes of ships) and over-all active duty militaries. As well as spending, % GDP military spending and reserve numbers taken into account in some way. The North Korean active military is 1.08 million compared to the U.S. 1.5 Million, but the U.S. has about an equal number of reserves available if including the National Gaurd, but North Koreas is sometimes cited as having over 4 million reserves. I think these statistics need to be more comprehensive, more interlinked, and more specific. Especially since national defense is such a hot research topic today. -Anonymous User

>> I made a sorted page and linked it by the traditional UI affordance of making the column header a link or action to show sorted numbers. Of course there are no macros or the like in Wikipedia, so we have to keep it as a static page and keep it updated - worse is that having it now may make it grow stale when this page is updated. :/ --Ken Chasse 2006-Dec-06 16:50 UTC

--

As for merge vs sort, we also have this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_total_troops which looks like another spinoff of the same data. Keeping these in sync is going to be really difficult. Whats the standard mechanism for this on Wikipedia? We need a common database type structure for different views of the same info. No idea how that would work tho! (beyond the scope of this article :) -- Ken Chasse 2006-Dec-06 16:50 UTC

--

I'm not sure if Wikipedia added the "sort" function after this discussion, but I was thinking it might be a good thing to add. My only problem is that I'm not sure of the finer technical details. Specfically, I don't know how to keep the rank numbers from sorting with the rest of the data. Also, does anyone know of a way to either isolate the later header rows from the sorting process, or create some sort of floating header row that will keep the headers visible when you page through the table. -- Farside268 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

-- There is a problem while sorting per "Active troops per thousand citizens ↓", The number 5 comes before 49 and 48. --Rougieux 12:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

-- the sort function is broken for the active personnel column. it's sorting alphanumerically rather than numerically. sorting on the other numerical columns functions as expected. this looks to be an issue with the wikimedia code handling the wikitable sortable class (ie, some javascript code somewhere) rather than the wiki source. 98.193.252.89 (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Data Sources
(Perhaps this should go somewhere else in Talk: here? --Ken Chasse 2006-Dec-06 16:50 UTC )

Does anyone have access to a copy of The Military Balance 2005-2006 by the IISS?? That would be the prime and irrefutable source to get these figures from. The Center for Defense Information is also a good source. The CIA world factbook doesnt give enough data and the World Almanac leaves out some crucial details as well. - Anonomous User, 1/21/06

Turkey
Which idiot has included Turkey in the list. The numbers don't add up.

Turkey has 1,054,750 active soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.75.145.210 (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

nigeria
The artivle says they have 900,000 troops but this list shows 75,000. I'm not certain the figure but for a country that was in a war recently 75,000 troops seems like a quarter drop in the bucket of a nation of 130 million people that was under 16 years of military rule. I think someone should check this out

http://usembassy.state.gov/nigeria/wwwhp082304b.html this says their are at least 100000 nigerian troops

switzerland
the list meantions switzerland with 3.300 troops. did i understand something wrong? this country had till 2003 something over 300.000 troops, being reduced last year to little more than 200.000. seen on de.wiki article schweiz. this number is absolutely unrealistic

Switzerland has conscript army, but its army also a has professional component. In principle every "able-bodied" Swiss male was trained and had to go on exercise every year. The conditions may have been a bit slacked in 2003, but there should still be considerably more than 3300 troops its mobilizable army. This would also explain why Switzerland spends double the figure the US spends per troop (700.000 USD), this obviously is expenditure for the entire army, not just its active professional core.

--

I corrected the page. I used the numbers I found on "armee.ch", the website of the Swiss Armed Forces. Here is a direct link to the numbers.

I do not know how accurate this page is. We have 65 times more soldiers than it was written here, what about the other countries ?

Look at this is the official, governmental site.

EU ranking
Is it not a tad silly to show a rank for the combined EU and then as well for individual member states? I'm not even sure it is appropriate to list the EU here as it is not military organization and the defence aspect of the union is yet very undeveloped, but in any case it should not be ranked. --Bjarki 21:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree.

-- Anonomous User, 1/21/06
 * Would be good if the EU would be put at the last place. So everyone can see it#s not a normal state --134.147.116.12 23:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

India??
Why is india suddenly first?? It says it includes "paramilitary forces". Well this is exactly why I advocate categorizing this data better and being more comprehensive. The U.S. number does not count the national gaurd. And I know for a fact China has a very large number of paramilitaries. But adding paramilitaries for one country and not another is silly, unfair, inconsistant, misleading and leads to ambiguity. I suggest someone either revamps the whole thing to include more specific numbers and a complete break down (including reserves, paramilitaries, national gaurd, etc) or put India back where it was. - Anonomous User, 1/21/06


 * Vandalism. I have given up watching this page as it needs to be updated with 2006 data. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

aight home slice INDIA has the largest standing military personnal population in the world (source: guiness 2006) and China is behind india but I'm not sure about the amount of people in both armies because I've heard that I have heard different figures

The numbers are right and India is 3rd Shayanshaukat (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

'''More than a thousand trillion? '''

INDIA'S PARAMILITARY: More than one quintillion? I don't know where to go for the information to correct this, so I'll leave it for someone else to fix, but that seems a bit high to me.

Confused about combining paramilitary and regular army
I just checked this page,

And India is now the largest Army in the world

This was done by including the Indian Army + Paramilitary forces as well

Well Pakistan has 620,000 men in its Army and around 300,000 men in Paramilitary

Can I do the same for Pakistan's Army??

Let me know

The Title of this article
This article has a very confusing Headline and is not clear.

It should be called,

Countries Ranked by number of Active Personnel in Armed Forces

The Armed Forces can include, Army, Navy, Air Force, Paramilitary (national guard, etc.)

The word Active signifies that no Reserve element can be included in Armed Forces.

What do you guys think???

Iran??
Who ever ranked Iran as number 2.

can u please give me a breakdown of their forces.

This page is inconsistent with List of countries by size of armed forces. There the size of Iran's military is significantly different. - User:I_Am_Canadian529 23:23, February 13 2006

This is How this page should be organized
This is how this Page should be categorized. What do you guys think? Feel free to delete this, but just giving u an idea

This is how this page should be organized with a proper break down.

Also, we need to create sub-pages where each country is sorted by the size of each individual service. Such as countries with the largest armies, etc.

It Looks great but getting the nummbers for each country will be hard so there will be alot of question marks

Also you should add a section called space troops :D

Russia and China have space troops :D

Deng 08-02-06 04.30 CET

Don't be bloody stupid.


 * Hmmm, space troops. I think space troops can go in the other category.  The problem with making a seperate category for every branch of the military for each specific country means there are many countries who don't have those kind of forces.  So it will look very un-organized.  This article needs to be totally re-designed. User:Mercenary2k Feb 9, 2006 2:19 AM (Toronto, Canada)

The US National Guard is not a paramilitary oganisation, its controlled by the US government.


 * P

Shayanshaukat (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Iran??
Iran:

Navy: 20,000

Army: 1,092,000 (including reserves)

Marines: 3,000 (The Marines are not a seperate branch in Iran, they're part of the Navy, so that would make the Navy 23,000)

Air Force: 52,000

Special Forces (IRGC/Pasdaran): 280,000 (excluding it's Air, Naval, and militia branches)

Paramilitary (Baseej): 11,000,000 (1,000,000 always on active service, the rest on a regular basis)


 * I dont think we use reserved when counting the number of troops. for example, pakistan's land army has 620,000 men and 513,000 reserves.  but i list their land army as being only 620,000 men.  since this is active troops.


 * Without the reserves, it's 400,000
 * Change added to Iran, with the above numbers... (excluding reserves and two branches of the IRGC).

The reserves should be included for all countries, because during a war all avaliable forces will be used.--Moosh88 21:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Boys and Girls
Hmm, I guess its left up to me to re-design this page.

I will get the proper breakdown on each country's armed forces and organize them in a proper manner.

This looks like a 2-3 week project.

Thank me later.



User:Mercenary2k

China
Where did the 3+ million nummber come from. As far as I know china is cuting down on humans and increaseing on equipment both in quality and quantity. So where did the 3+ million nummber come from. The nummber I know is around 2.3 million a so-so source can be found here http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-chimilitary10jan10,1,5305327.story?coll=la-headlines-world

It is an American paper called the LA times I dont know how good they are but the figure seems about right. So who ever gave the 3+ million I think either counted in the Normal Police or maybe knows something. Maybe china is planing a war and therefore has increased it nummbers. Deng 08-02-06 12.40 CET

I believe that includes the paramilitary, which has about 1 million personnels, so 2.25 million + 1 million =3.25 million

force size
69.164.121.206's edits seems like a vandalism. I've never heard that size of PRC's paramilitary forces was reduced to 1 million.

Military Review'' published by USACAC even shows that:


 * The PAP and militia are paramilitary organizations....The PLA has undergone two large reductions in force in the past decade, starting with about 3 million people in 1995 and losing 500,000 people from 1997 to 2000 and another 200,000 from 2003 to 2005. Chinese sources note that by the end of 2005 the PLA will have about 2.3 million people on its active duty roster. As the largest component of the PLA with the lowest priority in modernization, army ground forces suffered the largest proportion of cuts. Current estimates put the number at 1.6 million—down about 500,000 from 1995. Reserve personnel, most of whom are in reserve army units, number about 800,000. The PAP might have up to 1.5 million in its ranks. The primary militia, according to a 2004 defense white paper, has 10 million members, but the number of ordinary militia, presumably a larger force, was not announced.
 * [Chinese Army Modernization: An Overview, pp69-70, emphasis added]

Not simply PAPf. The number of PRC's paramilitary troops is about 11,500,000.

- 202.40.137.202 06:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Iran's Paramilitary
Just how trained are Iran's Paramilitary forces??

India and Pakistan have very strong paramilitary forces are active in conducting operations and are battle hardened.
 * Iran's paramilitary is very well trained, and many of those in it right now have also fought in the Iran-Iraq war. Without them Iran would have lost. There is even talk of making a third official ground force of 1 million soldiers (from the paramilitary).

Like the above posted said, Iran's paramilitary troops are very well trained and as good if not better than Pakistan.--Moosh88 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

11,000,000 are well trained? that makes the total out to 12,468,000 which makes it the highest this is clearly not true. can someone cite?
 * No idea but i think that can't be true, thato Iran has 11 Mio trained paramilitarian forces. Then Iran would have the largest army in the whole world. --134.147.116.12 23:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

they do have the largest army in the hole world but those 11,000,000 are not well trained Kermanshahi 12:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of Active Troops it should be Active armed forces
Doing this will clear up so much confusion.

What exactly is an active troops?

could they be sailors, maintenance crews for air force??

Active Armed forces are basically the current strength of all the armed forces

which could include, army, navy, marines, air force

reserve personnel will not be included

Active military personnel is someone who serves full time in the military.

Spain's Army
As far as i know, spain's army has about 83.000 men, an is expected that this year it will reach 85.000.

It`s been done.

Paramilitary add-ons, the EU and a Canadian update
What happened to the paramilitary add-ons? It was starting to make more sense, because in an all out war, nations would send all avaible troops including paramilitary forces. Is their gona be a seperate list made of number of active troops per country inculding with paramilityary forces or will it be added on? And oh, the Europian Union is making about 15 brigrades of troops of the various members. So why isnt it included in the list? And for the JTF2 (Joint Task Force 2) for Canada`s "special" forces, can you put a list of their weapons being used? And also to add the F-35 to their future aircraft buyings. Thanx for reading and my apologies for the errors.

comment moved from article

 * Note : This page is need updated I'm only updated India and indonesian military, but other coountry also changed their military too (From Indraemc@yahoo.com)

Why this paramilitary addon again?
If we really want to add the paramilitary forces, then it would be only fair to do so to all other nations, including North Korea. But since we are talking about _active_ troops, paramilitary forces don't really count... Yes, they can be mobilized in an all out war (how effective, well...), but if you really want to be that inclusive then you should also include reserve forces as well. Adding all the paramilitary crap for only Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea (shall that occurs), and a few other nations would only distort the purpose of this article, which is to show _active_ troop numbers.

If you really want to add the paramilitary numbers, etc., start a new article. Otherwise this article should do what its title suggests, i.e. reflecting active military troop numbers of each nation.

Ya but it also count sofr armies in case of war, and if I need the extra troops, Id go get them from the paramilitary forces, therefore they should count as part of the army. Or do we have to change the title of the article?
 * Well, I do not know how the paramilitary in the U.S. is. But in Iran there are over a million paramilitary troops on active duty at all times.

Exactly my point!


 * I don't know what is this "sofr armies" you are talking about, but paramilitary forces are not active military troops - so they are absolutely _not_ part of a regular army. using a different but relevant example, would you even say that the US National Guard is part of its Regular Army? Absolutely not! I'm sincerely doubious about this claim about Iranian paramilitary forces, and even then, it would only be fair to add paramilitary numbers to the figures of all nations. I haven't seen it done - if it indeed has been done accurately, then North Korea would've been first in the rankings, which despite the fact that it has a large military would be inaccurate considering that this article is about "active troops". So the only result of this paramilitary add-on is the distortion of factual information and a diversion from the actual topic of the article itself. Using this same flawed logic that "of I need the extra troops, Id go get them from the paramilitary forces, therefore they should count as part of the army", then you should also include police forces into the figures, and after that, the entire population of men aged 16 to 64 that can be conscripted.

Please stop distorting the article with these paramilitary figures, and please, people, actually understand that paramilitary forces are not part of active militaries themselves. This is all common knowledge, and I'm still perplexed as to why you people still don't understand this. Reliable rankings, from external sources, of nations with the most amount of troops in their active military certainly does not list Iran as the top three in the world.


 * Fine

Edits
According to: http://www.wri-irg.org/co/rtba/azerbaijan.htm Azerbaijan has 67,000 troops I corrected it.


 * Added the new number of Azerbaijani army to the list.

US troops
Why does the U.S. suddenly have 2.300.000 men? Even on the posted link it says only 1.400.000.

Exactly, you can even ask soldiers in the American military, they will tell you that the American military has 1.4 million.

The U.S. military has 1.4 million ACTIVE troops and 2.300.000 total. User:Daniel_Chiswick 23 March, 2007

Well actually the United States has a total of 1,426,700 Active troops. And 1,458,500 Reserve. With 53,000 active Paramilitary troops. And 5,000 reserve Paramilitary troops. With a TOTAL of 2,943,200 troops Both in Active and Reserve. 4 January, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua alvara (talk • contribs) 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

where are those figures coming from? either provide a citation or please use the DOD information and change the numbers accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.46.183.73 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Turkey
"The key to why there is a European push towards including Turkey into the EU is the military power that Turkey possesses. With 650,000 members, Turkey's military is the second largest armed force in NATO after the US."

Suggestion
Someone proposed a new format for the chart, and while I agree, I think it should be different.

We could refer to the military balance for the numbers.

With a chart including:

Active Military/Reserve Force/Paramilitary/Active troop per thousand citizens

This is just an example... not actual numbers. Rank will be based on Active troops only and not total, as Active troops are the backbone of the force for most countries.

I think this is easier as the numbers can be easily retrieved from the Military Balance of 2005-2006.

The US doesn't have 1,420,000 active troops, its only just over a million troops. Get it right.

This is a cool idea.

Edited the page to my idea. But it needs to be formated and it needs major work. Contribute people.
 * Looks very nice. Much better than first. ArmanJan

No one change it, its better now and we can all get the chance to contribute to it.

Thanks ArmanJan for fixing up the table. This still needs a lot of work. I think I may go to the library and search for the 2005-2006 Military Blance and see if we could bring these numbers up to date. *Remember folks, contribute when you have a source. No source and it is not valid.

Nice Job on this page. It must have been very tedious work. A lot of cutting and pasting. You must have been tired after all that. Anyways, I am going to this site, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ to get reserve and paramilitary forces numbers...

I suggest you guys do the same...

Mercenary2k

To the poster of "The US doesn't have 1,420,000 active troops, its only just over a million troops. Get it right." You should take note of this sentence: "This is just an example... not actual numbers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.15.101 (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which Nation has the best wikipedia page for its military?
Which country do u guys think has the best military page in wikipedia, or not the best, but among the top 10.

Let me know.

Mercenary2k

Canada

New articles for other categories
We have an List of countries by number of active troops but we should also create other pages like:

List of countries by number of Reserve force -->This list should rank countries by which country has the largest reserve forces.

List of countries by number of Paramilitary -->This list should rank countries by which country has the largest paramilitary forces

List of countries by number of Total troops -->This list should rank countries by which country has the overall largest total troops

List of countries by number of Active troops per thousand citizens -->This list should rank countries by who has the highest ratio of active troops to thousand citizens

What do you guys think??

Mercenary2k April 16, 2006 12:06PM


 * Yes, this is desirable. And could someone PLEASE readd the EU? They're listed for comparison in these articles: List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by exports, List of countries by agricultural output, List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions and List of countries by electricity consumption, so why not here?


 * Because the EU doesn't have a unified military. Skinnyweed 19:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Working on something new
I'm working on something new. It's going to incorporate everything on the previous list and more. It's going to include the Defense budget, and Defense budget/troop. When I'm finish (which will be awhile) I will put it up. This way, would could get a page with a good measure of military power.

I'm gathering all the information into an excel worsheet, when I'm done, I'll find a way to host it and someone else will do the dirty work. Finding the info is the easy part, writing it is not so easy.

All enteries should be right aligned
I know this will be a long and painful edit.

But all the numbers should be right aligned.

Some are left aligned and some are right aligned.

It doesnt look good or professional

Just a suggestion..

Mercenary2k 3:07 PM April 19, 2006

It's really too damn bad we cant do something like MathML in an active grid or SIAG (scheme in a grid) live on the page for updates, so we can code up some functionality for ad-hoc spreadsheets on wikipedia (this is a wide wikipedia issue of course) - this would allow seeing the same data sorted/calculated many different ways, without people like me having to generate static pages like Active_troops_per_thousand_citizens that likely wont be updated in concert with the mainpage... -- KenChasse 2006-07-11 21:11Z

Thats a really good point.

Why so much?
As I said, I am working on something new and a question came up.

I just finished the Defense Budget data and Defense Budget/Troop. And obviously, the United States was way up on the list with about $365,000 per troop. What is interesting, they are not #1, but #2. Switzerland is #1, with $772,000 per troop. Australia is #3, Luxembourg is #4 and Sweden is #6. What I want to know, is why are these countries spending so much money on defense? They do not contribute much militarily do they?

A lot of countries, like Australia, invest alot of their defense money in new technologies. In Australia's case, alot of that money is wasted on such things. And besides, Switzeland has a militia army and Air Force of 524,000.


 * No most of the money goes into the salaries of the soldiers, the medical attention, the training regime, the equipment they wear, etc... By the way, nice work on the table, its really tedious work, but good for you. --Mercenary2k

While there's no denying that US troops are some of the most well equipped soldiers in the world, their actually poorly paid compared to Australian and Swiss troops.

Russia
Why does Russia have anywhere from two to twenty million reserves? I mean, why is the estimate that broad? And if they do actually have twenty million reserves, that would make them the most powerful infantry in the world.


 * Well duh... IT'S RUSSIA!

-G


 * Russian Reserve Component is a pure fiction - it simply consists of every relatively healthy male up to the age of 45, whether or not he served by draft or even modestly trained, and no reservists are spawned to routine excersizes. That's the reason why generals do not wish to reduce the huge drafted active component, despite many questions regarding the viability of 1 million standing army. --Dmitry 06:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. The 20 million figure was introduced by [ this recent edit] by.

Well I changed it back. Mathieu121 20:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just came across this again, it does in fact seem true according to varying sources, including the BBC. http://www.mongabay.com/reference/new_profiles/300.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457038/html/nn4page1.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbw01f (talk • contribs) 04:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Map
Sombody should update the map, most information is wrong and based on statictics from previous suggestions. Also the country Azerbaijan has a exclave but thats added as part of Armenia, this should be corrected aswell.

EU
Even though I did not add it, it should stay there because if it is a POTENTIAL emerging superpower, then it should be placed in this table. And if you say it is per countrie, then why arent there the states of the United-States? Or the provinces of Canada? Or the Iranien provinces? Answer me that. Mathieu121 21:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a true nation YET. It may have potential. Using this philosophy, you can even begin to consider giving U.N, NATO and any other organization its own nationality. Somebody should remove the EU, but if it is to be left on [which it shouldnt], the list should then contain the manpower of organizations too. Or just create a seperate topic of manpower of different organizations


 * There is no such thing as a European army, so don't add it. User:ArmanJan

No, no, no. You are so misinformed. The EU is nothing like NATO or the UN, why is that so hard to grasp? I keep hearing this, yet it is totally wrong. The EU is unique, not a country, but not merely a trading bloc. It's on pages such as countries by GDP, so why is it not acceptable here? Everything is slowly becoming united. As long as it is unranked and maybe contains a notice, then it should stay here. Based on previous treaties you can be a citizen of the EU, you can't in trading blocs. It deserves its place. -- MichaelJBuck 01:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever, until there is no European army, it will not be listed on the page. Whatever your opinion is about how deserving and what not it is, is irrelevant. User:ArmanJan

EUFOR - there. Time to add it again. MichaelJBuck 15:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ok, look at the title of this article first

List of countries by number of active troops. list of COUNTRIES is the eu considered a country today? this is not about your opinion but black and white facts. Does it have its own nationality? its own constitution? NO. So is it a country? The answer is quite obvious
 * Erm we have a EU citizenship today. Ok we haven't atm a constitrution. Thx 2 france and the netherlands ;) But there is more and more in direction of an EU Army. But it's right it's not a new army. Cause the national armies will build this army. --134.147.116.12 23:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Finland
Finland already decided to reduce it's wartime capacity a few years ago. We now have a wartime force of 350 000 troops. The figure on the page shows the Cold War estimate.

All these numbers
I'm sorry, but all these numbers and no sources. The numbers I posted had a source, which was the Military Balance, but the new numbers don't. Can some of you pleae post a source for the information you get. Furthermore, I had a source for the U.S. numbers, where did it go?

Wrong Fault
The Royal Thai Armed Forces have a number of 330 000 Active Troops!!

Plz update the Bangladesh army stat.
plz update the stat of Bangladesh Army, Navy, and Air Force. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Bangladesh. Also, We have border security forces that is considered as Paramilitary plz see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Rifles.

So, In short total number of military should be (2,21,950). Though, 50000 army is in LPR. So, total number can be 1,71,950 after deducting LPR's. And, Border security force OR Paramilitary is 40,000.

Active Troops ?
Not being an American, perhaps some kind soul can write an article to clarify what the term 'active troops' means - or some other method of clarifying its meaning.

In particular, I think the following points need to be brought out:


 * inclusive of reserve forces, or merely regular (i.e. full time) forces only (there is a "list of total troops by country" with the same headings as this list)
 * includes uniform combatants only, or is the number extended to include:
 * uniformed but non combative (i.e. medics, chaplains, etc)
 * rear echelon troops (the people manning the home country stores depots for instance)
 * government employed munitions workers (the US in particular seems to have a few government owned munitions factories - e.g Redstone Arsenal
 * the US Corps of Engineers, who I think (but I may be mistaken) principally (but not only) carry out USA based activities to aid the civil authorities
 * includes troops in the course of basic training (i.e. are we only counting fully trained people here)
 * the people who man naval stores ships (the US, I think, includes these in their naval personnel figures, whilst the equivalent UK body, the RFA is entirely civilian]]

The reason I mention this, apart from my pedantic nature, is that the term 'active troops' seems to be splashed about Wikipedia a lot, but there is no clarification as to what it means. The most simple meaning (and probably the most likely) is "the people employed by that organisation". The implication in listing "active troops" as a measure to compare fighting forces is that all such troops would, somehow, be available were the country concerned at war. A better measure would therefore be the number of trained troops in front line military units. I suppose even that is a bit vague and there is the issue of how it would be measured. Perhaps this is what "active troops" means already.

Still seeking clarity here. What does "active troops" mean to Americans, whose term, after all, this is ?--Phillip Fung 09:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Active troops are military personnel that work FULL TIME in the military. The Military is their life. If there is a war, they are the first to get called, then it is the reserves, then conscripts.--Master Regal 10:32, 25 July 2006 (EST)


 * So why, Mr Consecending Master Regal, doesn't the article state the unambiguous term "full-time troops" in place of the US-derived jargon "active troops".

What about civilians supporting the military? It doesn't seem like they should be included in the totals, but at least for New Zealand, they are for some reason. AceNZ (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hurry Up!
People have been going on about how their going to clan up this article for ages. Why don't you hurry up and clean it up.

Added some stuff, NEED MAJOR WORK!!!.
Afterall, this was my format, but we ALL do need to pitch in to make this a top notch page. I added some citations and updated a few numbers, but I don't have time to reformat the list and update every country. Can someone please do it. Also, if anyone can get their hands on the Military Balance of 2006, that will be great. They are better with this sort of stuff than the citations I gave.

Also, I did a little something new. Military Capabilities. There was a page similar to this, but it was outdated and need much work and instead I created a new page of the top 10 militaries by manpower. Any help on it will be nice.

Back to the EU thing.
I support adding the EU only because on the military budget page, it is mentioned. It is also mentioned on many other ranking lists. The only thing is, I will not rank the EU because officialy it does not have a centralized military. The numbers will represent a potential military size.


 * Does the EU even have the authority to deploy troops? Maybe add NATO but definitely not EU. 67.180.147.127 07:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys add citations?
hi guys

i have been adding citations and correcting the military numbers for a lot of countries

can you guys help me out

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/glance.pdf

go to that site, it has statistics of militaries in the middle east and north africa

please update all the countries there

thanx again

Mercenary2k 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * never mind, did it my self Mercenary2k 01:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Need Information for the following:
Hi Guys,

I have updated a lot of information and added proper citation to support that information.

I need information for the following things to get the top 25 countries armed forces done

1 - Russian Paramilitary 2 - Ukranian Reserves 3 - French Paramilitary

Mercenary2k 19:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I got the numbers for the french paramilitary

Russia, Turkey and Iran
Ok, there seems to be a big difference concerning the active troops of these countries.

Iran's Active Troops is 420,000 not 768,000. Here is the source: http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060626_asia_balance.pdf (Page 33) Russia's Active Troops is 1,037,000 not 1,130,000. Here is the source: http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060626_asia_balance.pdf (Page 33) Turkey's Active Troops is 514,850 not 680,000. Here is the source: http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060626_asia_balance.pdf (Page 33)

Also, in regards to Turkey, the Economist States on Page 23 that Turkey has 1,043,550 Total Troops and your total is coming to 1,060,000 which is not correct. Turkey's Active Troops is 514,850. Its Reserves are 380,000 (http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/Turkey.pdf). And Turkey does indeed have a Paramilitary its called the Gendarmarie and Coast Guard which are both classified as Paramilitary by Turkey. Turkey's Paramilitary stands at 148,700. After which you add 513,850+380,000+148,700 = 1,043,550 which is exactly what the economist states the size of Turkey's total troops.

Now, if you guys find different information in regards to these 3 countries. Please post the sources here.

I am not trying to annoy anyone, I just want this site to have the most accurate and most up to date information possible.

Mercenary2k 07:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that most sources only think Iran has one armed force (like all other countries), however Iran has two armed forces. One is the regular armed forces (which has 520.000 active soldiers according to Military Balance), and the other is the IRGC, which has 350.000 active soldiers according to Global Security. Then there is the basij (which is actually part of the IRGC), and that has an estimated 11 million soldiers.  ArmanJan 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a few words...
If you are going to post information other than the source provided, please make sure it is a vaild souce and published after the date of the first source. There are people posting rediculous numbers and they are not part of the original source. POST SOURCES! I'm sure many of you have been to school, what does your english teacher say when you write a paper?

As for the U.S. numbers, the DOD source is only for the active force, so, if you can find a source for reserve and paramilitary, please post it.

What more needs to be done
Ok Guys,

I added citations besides all the numbers so we know which numbers are backed up by facts and which numbers need citations.

So in order to get this page done, we need to find the citations for the numbers stated and fill in the N/A with numbers and after that this page is done.

Mercenary2k 08:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think another thing needs done. This whole thing is a perfectly succesfull case of misinformation, and i suppose nato prop. This is what makes me think so: the entry for the netherlands mentions only 53k active troops and no reserve or paramiliary. although the 1st figure might be true (i assume its closer to 70000 when you count all braqnches of service, this only represents the standing and active part of the fighting force,(you might say netherlands has 50000 active soldiers and it would possibly be true eg.) A few years ago (max 10) the dutch army had up to 200000 soldiers active. Certainly not all of them have found other jobs yet. And recruitment for the active parts has been ongoing since.

Then the next nr. no! reserves, since an average conscript some 10 years ago would be still in the dutch reserve for at least 10 years the actual reserveforce is in the ordre of 700000 instead. (we used to pick up 70000 to 120000 conscripts a year.) Since many professional soldiers serve 2, 4 or 6 years, one may assume a new reserve of even more capable soldiers is being build up since.

Next stop: paramilitary.. since we include guard patrol and police force with non nato country's and apparently list them as paramilitary, why not for the dutch? Many professions in netherlands are screened, and some loads are uniformed, within certain limits such groups all have their ascribed tasks and supposed responsability's in case of military alert. A big part of the policeforces that mount an incredible 200-300000 is tested for loyalty in such cases, and all to ready to support the military armed. Then there are countless guard and prisonholding companys, and one may wonder in how far they represent paramilitary elements in an institutionailsed shape. Long sentence short. This list is probably moot, and a case of US controlled propaganda. edited to say 80.57.242.54 07:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I stumbled across this article and the main table appears to be broken; with align tags being shown and so forth. I have limited experience with setting up and fixing tables in wikipedia articles, so I added it to the list of articles needing cleanup in the hope someone with more skill can sort it out.


 * The hell happened here. This table had no problems and suddenly today, the entire table is screwed up.

weird. 68.48.164.178 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, Figured out the problem. Any number which has the tag is screwed up. I hope someone can fix this.  68.48.164.178 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the Table is Screwed up
Here is why the table is screwed up.

Any Row which has the tag "" or "" is not being read properly.

So we need to fix that and everything will be fixed.

68.48.164.178 07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

NATO?
Would it not make sence to add NATO seen as it is a military organization. Izax143 10:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not a complete alliance. They don't share everything. All they do is share their military and ICBMs. They're only a military alliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua alvara (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to have a NATO Total Entry, similar to how other articles have the EU (for economy and what not)? 128.205.45.29 (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done some changes
I've deleted the New Zealand stats because there extremely inaccurate. There are not 19,000 personnel in the NZDF and the amount of people per 1000 is much higher than 0.47. Also changed the Fiji stats. Only 300 reserves not 6000. This article also needs a maths program to propely figure out the amount of people per 1000 in each countries armed forces.

Thanks to who ever updated the New Zealand Stat's.

added a whole lot of citations
i added a whole lot of citations...

if anyone can find others, please add them....

i want every single number to be accompanied with a citation

if we work together, we call can make this an awesome page

Mercenary2k 08:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Indonesian citation's link is broken
I can find nothing in the Indonesian citation's link. Nielswik 14:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060626_asia_balance_powers.pdf (Page 35) Mercenary2k 08:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Forces's numbers
Someone has put Canada in twice. The entry at 61st place is the correct one but for someone reason there is another at 11th with numbers completely out of whack. Can someone clean this up?
 * fixed it, some joker replaced iran with canada there Mercenary2k 10:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Germany
The Germany Military has only 250.000 people http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd4w3DAgCSYGZbn76kTCxoJRUfV-P_NxUfW_9AP2C3IhyR0dFRQALiGVU/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82X0FfMVEw

German has no para-military groups!

Actually the Bundesgrenzschutz was paramilitary, but went integrated into Federal Police they lost the combatant status. SO paramilitary should be 0. But I don't have a source for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.193.11.27 (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

active troops vs. total (IRAN)
this page shows that iran has 11,000,000 total troops, but the page that ranks according to total men lists vietnam as 1st with 9,000,000 and ranks iran as having only 930,000. which one is the correct one?


 * it depends. the 11 million are a militia but are badly trained and rarely have they been called up and the 40,000 are pure paramilitary forces who are properly trained. so there is a debate going on.... Mercenary2k 16:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The map..
...shows Serbia and Montenegro, but such a State Union no longer exists ever since this year's secession of Montenegro. The map should show Montenegro and Serbia separately. --PaxEquilibrium 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

South African Reserve Numbers
Can some one please find out the number of South Africa Military reserves, does the per 1000 ratio include only active duty personnel and should police forces be included in the paramilitary section? Goldfishsoldier 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Somebody suggested it earlier but I think this article should absorb the total troop article because they literally have the same information but in a different order. Actually literally is too strong a word because there are some small differences. The merger should sort them out (e.g. Brazil: 285,000 or 385,600 paramilitaries). Makgraf 19:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mercenary2k said No need to merge, this page sorts countries by number of active troops while the other sorts them by total troops. But they have the same information. Wikipedia is not a spreadsheet that should have different articles for every possible permutation of items in a list. Makgraf 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree a merge. I don't like the term 'active troops'. As an English language phrase, it is almost indistinguishable from 'troops'. However, I have since learnt that American English speakers understand this term to mean regular forces troops. US specific jargon should be avoided in favour of plain English, unless the context clearly excuses it. --203.218.93.53 11:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Let us merge those articles then. It has no sense having both of them here. The other list has a main contributor who is very protective towards the article he claims as his. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethiopia and Eritrea
There's something weird going on here (other than the fact that Ethiopia's citation is mislabeled "Eritrea"). It is simply not credible that Ethiopia has no reserves. More over the citation that Eritrea has 250,000 reserves seems to be from this sentence: "The National Service programme has had a mixed reception. The second batch of 26,000 youngsters passed out of Sawa military training camp in July: 250,000 are due to be trained in five years. Some soldiers believe the real aim of National Service is to disband the liberation army and build a more malleable force.". More-over I can't find the 162,500 number in the Ethiopia citation. I'm going to change the number of active Ethiopian troops to 182,500, from the same source that the Eritrean figures are provided. If anyone knows the reserve figures that would be great. Makgraf 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

US National Guard
Isn't the US National Guard somewhat of a reserve force? I really think it should be included in at least that count. Plus about a fifth of the National Guard is currently serving in Iraq, is that counted in the active troops section? These statistics don't necessarily reflect differences between nations as to how their forces are classified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.147.127 (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Iran's paramilitary force
In the Military of Iran article, it clearly says that the Basij army is 90,000 full-time + 300,000 reservists. The further 11 million is the equivlent of draft pickings. I don't think it needs to be included in the paramilitary count.

"Iran also has a paramilitary volunteer force called the Basij (or Baseej), which includes about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed Basij members, up to 300,000 reservists, and a further 11 million men and women who could be mobilized.[5]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.147.127 (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Israeli Active troops number is outdated...
According to 2007 israel has currently 187,000 troops in active duty and 168,000 was the number at 2002... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.87.226 (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

do you have any sources to prove it? Kermanshahi 14:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

US Army per 1000 figure Wrong?...
The figure in the article (4++/1000) appears to be wrong. The US has a population of 300 million and the number of troops is about 2.3 million. However, (2.3/300)*1000 = 7.67. How is it 4 per 1000 persons?
 * We are only taking into account the Active troops number which is 1.4 million —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mercenary2k (talk • contribs) 05:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Changed Iran's numbers
and update source to more reliable source http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/09/f93d378c-9321-4d56-a459-64cc54743f7f.html Macutty 03:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Basij has 11,000,000 volunteers aswel which can be mobilized and you are not counting them! Kermanshahi 12:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not change the numbers of Iran, all the time!
It is stupid! Why are you idiots changing Iran's number of troops all the time! It belongs on number #1, (only military, and only based on number, not one quality), according to the number of total troops. Kermanshahi is right about that. Perhaps, when you look at strenght of the military, it comes out other country's have more military potential, or have better weapens and better trained soldiers. But they haven't got as much troops and manpower as Iran, and I don't think they ever get as much as Iran. Perhaps, later on, another country gets more than eleven million total troops. But as long as no other country has that enormous count of troops, Iran needs to remain on #1. So don't change it, please. It doesn't make any sense to keep on changing numbers and ranking, if frequently has been proven, that they just have the most total troops.

Mrlob 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed Myanmars Numbers
On CISIS page 35 there says that Myanmar has 428 thousand soldiers not 375 thousand so I've changed it and I have added the paramilitary of 72 thousand that, 'cause thats also mentioned on the military of Myanmar page. the Honorable Kermanshahi 07:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi is right; as he almost always is, in all his great and neverending military knowledge and gigantic wisdom. Rhobinji, loyal servant of the Great and Mostly Honarable Kermanshahi! 06:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead link for US Source
Just tried to verify the source for the US troop estimate however it resulted in a dead link. I cannot find the new source, any one care to help this search?

Thanks

UK Paramilitary
I was wondering who the one person in the UK paramilitary was. Sounds like a lonely job.


 * I also saw that, why don't we put his/her name up? Must be someone we know. FFMG (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Croatia paramilitary ?
As faras I know Croatia has no paramilitary forces. The quoted site only sais: Croatia 2002. 10 000. I was wondering where did the author found paramilitary troops. Croatian paramilitary force HOS was merged with Croatian army in 1992.
 * That site is showing the number of paramilitary forces for each country. thats it, nothing else Mercenary2k 22:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A favor
Please don't exaggerate Iran's total number of military personnel! (It might persuade common people to support another U.S. military invasion)

Peace and love

Iraqi Security Forces
This source US Department of State, Iraq Weekly Status Report August 15, 2007 sais Iraq has got 359,500 soldiers while on the page there sais 179,500. The Honorable Kermanshahi 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

France paramilitary
The source for the number of paramilitary troops in France mentions this number for the Gendarmerie.

The Gendarmerie is not a paramilitary organisation, but an integral part of the Army, put at the disposal of the Ministry of Interior. For instance officers are formed in Army schools and can take up Gendarmerie assignments if they wish to.

I think that this status should be revised. Rama 13:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * this is a truly unbelievable edit comment. We have official sources from the French Ministry of Defence, and we should replace them with obviously shaky ones (which mistakes the Gendarmerie with a paramilitary organisation and give an estimate of the reserve off the mark by an order of magnitude and a half) just because it would question the infallibility of the source ? User:Yokmin16 has reverted this edit several times without providing any reason to do so, and does not even challenge the sources I provide. I find this behaviour extremely peculiar. Rama 20:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah but the point is that the Gendarmerie is like a paramilitary force and putting it as part of the army would just inflate France's number of active troops. Dapiks (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They are active troops, as you acknowledge yourself. Thus it is not "inflating" the number of active troops, only giving it its true value. That the role held by the Gendarmerie in France would be held in some other countries by paramilitary forces is irrelevant, it is organic structure that counts. By every criteria, the Gendarmerie is a military force, part of the French military, and we have sources which confirm this. Rama (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Sort" Tabs use wrong algorithm
The sorting tabs at the top of each column would be very helpful indeed...unfortunately, they do not currently work properly. They seem to be sorting according to some kind of 'alphabetical' formula rather than a numerical one. Hence 11,200 appears between 104,500 and 110,000, which is of course grossly inaccurate. Phantomopus 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So let's leave it and don't ad sort tabs. The Honorable Kermanshahi 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan
I can't find Azerbaijan anywhere on the list and I think it has a military I don't know its current numbers so don't feel qualified, could someone put it on?--Hon. Abe 20:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan has about 126,000 active troops and a reserve force of 1 mil+ 90.240.49.63 (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

German Paramilitary Forces
Germany has no paramilitary forces. The former Bundesgrenzschutz is now Bundespolizei. During the 1990s they were transformed from a paramilitary unit to a regular police of the federal government. That should be changed. --87.157.207.82 21:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. They lost combatant status and would not be used in a war. 213.172.112.58 (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A new column
Some day soon, when it's too snowy to work and I'm bored, I just might add a "Total Population" column to the list, just so that readers may get another perspective of the proportion of military to total citizenry. Of course, if anyone else wishes to beat me to it, go right ahead!Rathersane (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Peshmerga
The Kurdish Peshmerga Military has not only 180.000 people. The Peshmerga has 250.000 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshmerga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.34.229 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide a reliable source for your changes (wikipedia isn't a soruce) and insert it into the article via references when you make changes? Otherwise your changes can't be relied on for accuracy and thus will be reverted. Thanks.Sbw01f (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurd army?
The source provided for the Kurd army doesn't actually mention Kurdistan anywhere. Are they considered a real army? If so, does anyone have any real sources for their numbers?Sbw01f (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kurdistan doesn't claim to be a country therefore it is original research to put it under "List of countries" article. Troops in North of Iraq belong to the Iraqi government. -- Cat chi? 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
A lot of vandalism has been done to this article threwout the years, a lot of it has not been reverted yet, I'll be going threw it soon to change all figures to that what sais on the source. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New countries need to be added
St.Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Iceland, and Monacco need to be added on this list. They were previously on the "countries without armed forces" page but are being removed because they do have armed forces. ANK 71.244.249.243 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Be Bold! and add it yourself along with references. -- S M S  Talk 16:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll add them within the next three weeks (I'm pretty busy right now) ANK 71.244.249.243 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is missing
Azerbaijan is a independent count in soutern caucasus, they have the largest army of the causus and are ranked 48th by military budget ($2 billion) and yet they are still missing from this list?!?! We need to add Azerbaijan to this list as soon as possible! The numbers of their military can be found in the Military of Azerbaijan page. 126.400 active personnel; 575.000 reserve forces; 15.000 paramilitary troops; 250 troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.213.29 (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed this is disturbing, but the texting is so primitive that you have to change every number below Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan should be ranked 38th in this list.Baku87 (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

UK, paramilitary
Anyone else notice that the number of paramilitary troops employed in the British armed forces is an impressive one! Im guessing that there is most likely a typo, but if not it would be very nice if this fine man or woman could be named in the table, along the lines of eg... #of paramilitary: 1, Mr Geoff Billingsby from Chipping Norton. I hazard a guess that there may be a few decimal places missing, and thus the British armed forces may be down a few thousend, even with such a spiffing job that Geoff is doing. Very ammusing though! :D Ginga123 (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Its particularly absurd when considering that on the Wiki page for "paramilitary" the UK cadets are mentioned as a prime example, and they number in the tens of thousands at least. 213.172.112.58 (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The ACF/CCF/ATC are not, in any way, a paramilitary organisation (much as they might like to think they are). They aren't even a military organisation for that matter. The Cadet Force is a youth organisation. The idea that cadets are capable of manning the guns as a last line of defence like some latter-day Volksturm is strictly from a 13yr old's wet dream. Paddyboot (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

100
On the list No. 100 is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk08210 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

% of total population
How about adding a column for percentage of country's total population? I think that would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.36.199 (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-Nation Addition
While looking at this list I've noticed that it includes Transnistria, a region that is not itself a nation (it's part of Moldova) and therefore should not be in the list, regardless of if it's de facto independent or not.

Now of course if it's to saty then Taiwan and Kosovo (both of which are actually recognized by more then 5 countries) should be included and going by the status of Trasnistria Abkhazia and S. Osettia as well.
 * -IkonicDeath —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

Merge proposal
The article has been listed for merge months ago and no action was taken. What do the articles regular editors say: merge or remove the tag and if so, why (motivate your opinion please). Thanks in advance,  Jouke   Bersma   Contributions  12:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge: the articles have the exact same information and can be sorted in any way the reader likes. It makes no sense to have two. Ndunruh (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge In fact we have three articles with the same information. There is List of countries by size of armed forces also.  I propose merging both articles into that one as it is the more comprehensive, as it includes air force and navy also.  I suggest breaking into three tables though, with navy and air force separate.  That will make the merge easier, List of countries by number of active troops and List of countries by number of total troops  seem better referenced than List of countries by size of armed forces‎ so could just be pasted in wholesale and delete the existing data in the article.  This will make it a lot easier to control.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree, having a single page with the details also means we will not end up having conflicting information. Lawbringer (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * merge All the same, but make redirects! Migdejong (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge And make sure the information on naval units for instance is kept in the newly merged article. David (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - As previously stated, the information already exists in List of countries by size of armed forces. I think this article is better formatted, but the information is definitely redundant enough to justify a merge. --Grahamdubya (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge I think merging it into List of countries by size of armed forces would be best.  I do, however, think that the latter article should be cleaned up.  Perhaps instead of having everything in one messy table, it can be broken up into number of troops, number/type of ships, etc., something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witan (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this may take a while) Jafeluv (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

New Discussion
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bangladesh and Brazil
Bangladesh is listed as #34 but with active troops of "400,000+", which should put it at #13 (between Myanmar with 428,250 and Indonesia with 316,000. Also, the source puts Bangladesh at 137,000, which should be #35.

Brazil is listed as #17 with 312,000 (between Taiwan with 290,000 (above) and Germany with 284,500 (below)). The source connected to it doesn't seem to support that number (312,000), but the source for the number of reservists ad paramilitary (currently listed as 285,600, but the source says 385,600) seems to be legitimate and says Brazil's active troops are 287,600, which would make Brazil #17, exactly where it is now.

I'll fix up Brazil, but can someone deal with the mess with Bangladesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.151.139 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom troop total
As of 10 February 2009, the displayed total number of UK troops is 100,000,000. I'm sorry, but there aren't even one-hundred million people living in the UK. This needs to be corrected. This page is full of so many inaccuracies. Tong22 (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

They forgot Swaziland
I looked it in the list and its troop strength is nowhere to be found. Does anyone have a source (and possibly add it to the list) for this country? I am certain they have a military (possibly only a small one).

= Kyrgyzstan miscolored = Kyrgyzstan is colored dark red along with China, USA, etc, but it should be colored orange for ~10K troops. dbw (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Added this to the image's talk page. dbw (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind, Kyrgyzstan is way over to the west... that's part of India.
 * Andalay! Shayanshaukat (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Paramilitary
The Section under "Canadian Paramilitary" lists only number of members in the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans... The RCMP is considered a Paramilitary organization; therefore, should we not add in those numbers too the paramilitary number?

9,350 is the number listed, consisting of Canadian Coast Guard and Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 17,678 is the number of Sworn in RCMP members. 8,614 is the number of un-Sworn RCMP members. Bold text35,642 would be the new total...Bold text

Canadian Paramilitary
The Section under "Canadian Paramilitary" lists only number of members in the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans... The RCMP is considered a Paramilitary organization; therefore, should we not add in those numbers too the paramilitary number?

9,350 is the number listed, consisting of Canadian Coast Guard and Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

17,678 is the number of Sworn in RCMP members.

8,614 is the number of un-Sworn RCMP members.

35,642 would be the new total...

Georgia Troops
I don't know what to do here. In list Georgian troops have 17,500. But if you click on Georgia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Georgia you will be able to see there is wrong in the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asas007pl (talk • contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

__________________________________

Hey guys it states that Iran's reserves number 350 000. For one thing, during the 1979 revolution when the army and military was disbanded by the out going Shah, the Iran -Iraq war followed, and the people who volunteered (because there was no formal army) numbered over 500 000. And that is 30 years ago, Iran now has a population of 70 million people. I know the govt. exaggerates the number of basiji's to the extent of 11 - 15 million, however it does not mean there are just 350 000, remember over 70% of the country's population is under the age of 30. If there were over 500 000 - 1 million casualities during the war, than that means Iran is able to summon over a half million people to fight in a time of war. It is now 30 years later, and the population has almost tripled, and the formal military established. You can post whatever numbers your sources tell you, but 350 000 is ridiculously low,especially for a country that fought an 8 year war with just civilian fighters, most of which had no formal training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.39 (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)