In an age where how to manufacture weapons of mass destruction is relatively common knowledge, with the only real limitation being the procurement of the necessary components, we find ourselves asking whether possession of such former aces in the hole connotes the same military power distinction it once did. Knowledge is difficult to contain in the increasingly globalized world of today; weapon systems and arms that were previously exclusive to a select few nations have found their way to other countries through various, sometimes clandestine, channels. The inevitable question in light of such developments is can we still meaningfully compare military strength and power between countries, today and in the future?
             Like all the other capabilities that may constitute a state's power, military power has no cut and dry definition that enables it to be measured directly. At best it can be characterized by a number of quantitative and qualitative factors which can be categorized as being either internal or external measures of a state's military power. The internal measures include such factors as a state's military budget, its weaponry, and it's morale and leadership; the external measures and their respective factors include a state's international reputation as well as its association with other states, such as in the case of alliances (Rourke 320).
             Although military spending is not identical to military strength, comparisons of the military budgets between countries can be revealing. The combined U.S. military budget with that of its allies for 2002 was more than 38 times greater, at over $555 billion dollars, than the combined military expenditure of the seven countries identified by the U.S. Department of Defense as potential enemies - Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria (Berry 39). This enormous disparity reveals the dependency of the military on the underlying economy of the state as a so...