Their core argument is that national power is divided into three interlinked realms: (1) natural resources, (2)

national performance, and (3) military capabilities. The first realm encompasses the level of resources either available to, or produced by, a country. The second realm encompasses national performance. It is derived from the external pressures facing a country and the efficiency of its governing institutions (nominally labeled the state) and its society at large. The third realm encompasses military capability, which is understood in terms of operational proficiency or effectiveness. Military capability is produced as a result of both the strategic resources available to a military organization and its ability to convert those resources into effective coercive power. These three realms taken together describe national power. The first groups objective was to find variables that help identify the great powers in the international system in 2020. The most important variables include population, human capital, economic power, technological prowess, and military capabilities. The group argued that the single most important form of power in 2020 will continue to be military power. The best single indicator of military power is the defense budget. Other indicators might include expenditures on various areas of the military, such as ground, air, and naval forces. However, these quantitative indicators do not always correlate well with military effectiveness. History demonstrates that smaller armies have defeated larger opponents because of better training, doctrine, and strategy. Economic power is the foundation of military power. The most important single indicator is GDP. Like defense budgets, however, GDP provides only a limited picture of power. It says little about the composition of the economy, such as whether it is spearheaded by leading sectors or dominated by old and declining ones. Other important variables include human capital and technology. The best readily available measure of human capital is the average year of educational attainment. For technology, the best indicator is per-capita expenditure on research and development. Ultimately, however, none of these indicators provides a complete picture of power in 2020. Articulating an ideal indicator is difficult, perhaps impossible. But it is likely to have something to do with quality: the ability of states to convert these components into outputs and make use of them. For example, is there a sense of unity and purpose in the state to mobilize and pursue national ambitions? http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2005/RAND_CF 215.pdf The availability of natural resources, in the form of food, minerals, energy, etc, plays an extremely important role in the relative power structure of nations. Large amounts of natural resources are essential for a modern nation to wage war, to operate an industrial base, and to reward other international actors through trade and aid. Moreover, as in the case of the geopolitical ownership of strategic places, the physical possession of natural resources is not necessarily a source of power

unless a nation can also develop those resources and maintain political control over their disposition.23 The dependence of nations on crucial resources can severely restrict their national power and influence. Conversely, the dependence of others on a resource held by a particular country or countries can add to the latters influence and power. The dependence of the world on oil supplies from the Gulf has exalted the geostrategic importance of this region and hence provided these states with an instrument of power, which they amply demonstrated in the oil crisis of the 1970s to the detriment of the West. The almost complete dependence of Japan on raw materials is a critical issue in the survival calculations of the Japanese. The importance of natural resources varies with time and technology. A resource, nevertheless, is a potential element of power and if the mother country is not in a position to utilize or defend this resource, it may invite envy or even aggression. So, it is important also to have the technology and the wherewithal to exploit the gifts of nature. The source of strength the U.S. enjoys from its abundant natural resources and immense technological and industrial capability is the cornerstone of U.S. position as the sole super power of the world. The importance of technology in raising and maintaining a potent military cannot be overemphasized. Countries that fail to keep pace with modern technology can only do so at their own peril, and they become totally dependent on other countries for provision of latest military hardware and software. Technological innovations have often been the difference between the victor and the loser. Beyond doubt, the current U.S. mastery of the world has only been possible because of its overwhelming superiority in (military) technology. Maintaining a military also requires, as mentioned earlier, a strong economy as well as access to natural resources. However, in addition to material means, the military strength depends a great deal on the quality of the fighting force and its leaders. Of course, the concept of military leadership has somewhat changed in modern war. The individual charisma and bravado of the military commanders is becoming less and less relevant, but their training, ability to comprehend the situation, timely decisionmaking and judicious use of available resources remain paramount. http://www.issi.org.pk/publication-files/1361514464_18039185.pdf