Strategic Regions in 21st Century Power Politics - Zones of Consensus and Zones of Conflict

Chapter Six
88

Figure 6-5: Conventional Forces^11

Manpower
(In thousands)

Manpower

Quality

Weapon

Effective-

ness

Infrastructure

and Logistics

Organizational

Quality

Co-efficient

Average

China 4 325 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
USRR 4 335 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.7
USA 2 068 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9
Brasil 274 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4
India 1 096 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3

This table shows the weakness of the conventional forces of China and
India in Manpower Quality, Weapon Effectiveness, Logistics and
Organizational Quality as well as the capacity of the United States in
quality of Manpower and Weapon Effectiveness. The Soviet Union was in
an advanced position in all specific areas, which explains the reason for
obtaining a comfortable coefficient conversion of 0.7–meaning that the
analyst concluded that there was a strong background of investment in
military sciences and military technology.
Moreover, Ray Cline concluded that the equivalent number of combat
units would be as follows:

Figure 6-6: Conversion^12

Countries Coefficient Man/Thousands Effective/Thousands

China 0.3 4 325 1 298

URSS 0.7 4 335 3 035

United States

of America

0.9 2 068 1 861

Brazil 0.4 274 110

India 0.2 1096 329

The results shown in the different tables that study the Potential of
countries considering and using those coefficients allow us to conclude the
important weight of the USSR and of the United States, too. Brazil and
India were dwarfed by China, due to the structural debilities and the low
amount of manpower.

(^11) Ibid.
(^12) Cline.