NationStates Jolt Archive

Is having 7% of your total population in the military unrealistic? That includes all the soldiers, medics, technical people, commanders, etcetera and my Armada numbers too. It also includes the people who actually build the stuff that the military uses.

does it include support workers as well, like non militray workers contracted to the military?

It includes all military personnel. Xanthal is a Communist nation, there's no such thing as contract workers.

It should be 2% or lower. You can go up to 5% you are in a monumental war, like WWII.

Keep in mind that this is the future too, so there's not as much need for labor.

Put it this way - you're an established nation, so as long as your economy is about as good as it can be, you can probably just about manage it. That's how I see it, anyway.....

Bear in mind that 7% of your population in the military represents 7% of your population being fed, housed, trained and equipped at government expense rather than going out and earning income to be taxed. Furthermore, if you have two billion citizens (I'm not looking at your population numbers; it's irrelevant), not all two billion are in the workforce. Many are too young, too old or otherwise incapacitated. However, that 7% of your population in the military represents a much larger percentage of your income-producing workforce. So there's a much bigger impact on your nation than you may realise.

There's really no reason for large militaries unless you're actively engaged in war and are fighting for your life. Just because your industry may utilise advanced automation doesn't mean your people are lounging around doing nothing. Even socialist/communist societies need to keep their citizens productive.

My government budget is dominated by military spending, and always has. But my military has stayed below 1% of my population except during the single war I engaged in, where I went to 5%. As soon as the war was over I sent the majority of them back to civilian life to return to the workforce. It's the only way to keep my economy strong.

Standing militaries in the world run from about 5% in tiny Banana republics to 0.1-2% with large Nations. There is actually a cap on number of troops when you begin to realise any more is pointless. There is no longer any need for more soldiers once you get to several million. There become problems with moving troops around etc etc.

One thing I will say is countries have gone up as far as 10% in big wars, such as WWII. There are countries where 1 out of 5 people served in the military at one stage or another. Note: These tend to be very small countries, the size of, or smaller than NS Nations when they first create.

And there's always North Korea, where everyone is starving because they're in the military. Well, what I've been hearing is that it's possible but not advisible for extended periods of time. Thanks for your input. I've put a halt to armed forces expansion for now, so I'll be waiting for that percentage to drop below 5% before I enlist any more people.

And there's always North Korea, where everyone is starving because they're in the military. Well, what I've been hearing is that it's possible but not advisible for extended periods of time. Thanks for your input. I've put a halt to armed forces expansion for now, so I'll be waiting for that percentage to drop below 5% before I enlist any more people.

That statement is highly incorrect. You don't need a high percentage of the population as farmers. People don't starve because of a big military. People starve becasue of poor farming practices....but anyway...

I'd actually regularly drop the percentage as you go up. Big countries tend to have smaller percentage armies than small ones, mainly because there is a limit to how many people you can move around at once.

Well, there is a way to have a much larger population in your army, and still have that population being economically productive. Just make all males serve a national service to train them to be soldiers, and once their basic military training is done, they can be trained to different military departments, then released back into the workforce. Then, they might go back to camp for a few weeks every year to brush up on their military training, and when war breaks out, you may not have a large standing army, but you have a reservist force made up of almost half the population, which can be called up really quickly in case of war. It's a good way to get one up over your opponents, and it keeps your citizens fit too. There is the issue of human rights, but you being a Communist nation, there shouldn't be any problem about that :p

I ran the numbers again, and it turns out that only 4% of my population is in the military. Still high, but not as bad.

Another question: What is considerec reasonable for militias if one is invaded? I have compulsory military service....

Another question: What is considerec reasonable for militias if one is invaded? I have compulsory military service....
As Gothic Underworld mentioned, you can have compulsory service then release your soldiers back into the workforce as reserves. They're still not as good as soldiers in standing armies, but better than your average farmer with a pitchfork.

Once you get invaded, your economic concerns are fairly moot. Survival is paramount, so generally anyone capable of lifting a weapon can be drafted into the militia. I would hesitate to give it a hard number, but I would say it's not unreasonable to devote a significant portion of your population when the enemy is marching on their homes.

I always keep mine less than 1%, that way, you can fund better gear and better training for soldiers. And as history has shown itself, smaller armies can win against larger ones just based on training and technological advantages. eg. English longbowmen, only 3,000 in 100 years war killed a force of 30,000 infrantry or something like that.

Logistically speaking, probably not. I read somewhere that China has the largest army in the world and that's only 2.8 million people out of nearly 1.3 billion people. Plus, those 2.8 million troops are some of the most poorly trained in the world. I think North Korea has the largest percentage of their population in their army but look at their situation.

I would say somewhere between 1-2% is the best number for you. Remember, quality over quanity.

If you do just a little math, you can find out why it would be bad to have 7%.

Some rough figures based on real nations (the exact numbers will vary):
Military age is generally 18 to 65. Assuming an 80 year life span, the military age population should be around 60%. Approximately 15% of the population will be unfit for service. That gives you a pool of 51% of the population of age and fitness to draw on for military service. If women are excluded (common practice) the pool halves to 25.5%. Even if women are in the military, I would say only allow 50%, giving a pool of 38.25%.
Note that the same pool the military draws from is the workforce for industry.
7% of your total population is 13.7 % of this pool, or 1 in every 7 workers.
7% of the male population would be 27.4%, or 1 in every 4 workers.
7% of the 100% male/50% female population is 20.5 % of this pool, or 1 in every 4 workers.

Bad for the economy anyway you slice it.

I always keep mine less than 1%, that way, you can fund better gear and better training for soldiers. And as history has shown itself, smaller armies can win against larger ones just based on training and technological advantages. eg. English longbowmen, only 3,000 in 100 years war killed a force of 30,000 infrantry or something like that.

Actually I believe a very large proportion was Calvalry if you're thinking of either Crecy or Agincourt. I think you've brought up a valid point. This is probably the best example in history of how training really makes a difference.

All of Europe had longbows, however nobody trained at it like the Welsh and later the English. There were laws, at least in some areas, forcing people to go attend longbow practice once a week. This meant that when they levied soldiers they immediately had a large force of very highly skilled bowmen whereas the French had a whole bunch of freeholders and peasants with makeshift weapons.

Later examples of how training can make a huge difference are the English infantry in the Napoleonic wars, Prussians in later periods and of course the numerous examples of well trained modern armies, Goose Green, Entebi Airport etc

As numerously stated 7% of a population in the miltary is bad for your economy.
The maximum percentage for the military during peace is 1%, that is the point when it's starts costing more than the economy can handle.
Most countries usually have less than 1%.
And as also stated less men means that you can spend more on their training and equipment, I'd say that 0,8/1% will give a not overcostly military while still numerous enough to handle a semi aggresive policy without going for your conscripts.

Ah. I knew this was still around somewhere: Why High % Armies are Quite Unrealistic (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13017)

It should be 2% or lower. You can go up to 5% you are in a monumental war, like WWII.In a momumental war you can go up to 10% (it did happen in WWII)

It should be 2% or lower. You can go up to 5% you are in a monumental war, like WWII.In a momumental war you can go up to 10% (it did happen in WWII)

Have you looked at those nations that did that, they were very small nations, that is even true today, the large nations have much smaller % of their population in the military then smaller ones, partly becuase the effects withdrawing further % from your economy magnify beyond proportion the higher your population gets.

So realistically, no nation more then 30 days should be able to go over 5%. Even when invaded, 10% is probably the max (Militia, partisans, etc.), sure, throwing every single body in the country might stop an invasion, but the catastrophic effects it would cause are just as bad as being defeated by the invasion.

I disagree with the notion of allowing or disallowing something to any nation based on age and size. This is about roleplay, not game mechanics. A nation that chooses to self-destruct by maintaining an unreasonable military is welcome to do so; if they handle it well we can even enter into an RP with them. But it's elitist and obnoxious to tell a nation they can't build a tank or field an army because they're too young. I refuse to buy into that sort of nonsense.

Is having 7% of your total population in the military unrealistic? That includes all the soldiers, medics, technical people, commanders, etcetera and my Armada numbers too. It also includes the people who actually build the stuff that the military uses.

I disagree with the notion of allowing or disallowing something to any nation based on age and size. This is about roleplay, not game mechanics. A nation that chooses to self-destruct by maintaining an unreasonable military is welcome to do so; if they handle it well we can even enter into an RP with them. But it's elitist and obnoxious to tell a nation they can't build a tank or field an army because they're too young. I refuse to buy into that sort of nonsense.

Xanthal asked for an evaluation of realism. Multiple people gave an evaluation based on realism. No one said he could not build a tank or feild an army. Also, please note that Xanthal is quite old. What is your complaint?