It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China's military Strength?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
with respect i disagree with what your saying mate.

i believe a country can have all the technology in the world, but if you have a bunch of apes operating it, it's just basicly a waste of time.

you gave me iraq as an example, i give you vietnam!! - vietnam is a small country yet the US (with all its might) lost that war.

china has the biggest military manpower in the world/the biggest naval fleet in the world.

but when i say the word 'superpower' i don't just been in a military sence!!

china as the fastest growing economy in the world (a land rich full of human resources), and they WILL be the next superpower i have no doubts about that.

but i also believe within the next 50/100 years there will be numerious ^so called^ world 'superpowers' as povety will be almost a thing of the past, i can go into more detail about this (but that is another thread).


Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by st3ve_o
well china are tipped to be the next superpower!!

and i think its safe to say which ever country got into a war with china would lose.

what's the manpower of the chinese military?? ive heard its the equivlent of (US, UK, Russia) all put together!!



Your assertions show a gross lack of military understanding. In the 21st century (also 20th), it isn't about who has the most soldiers, it's the ability to project power globally. A recent example are the iraq wars. In both wars, iraq had many more troops than the Coalition forces and in the first Gulf war, they also had the finest soviet equipment and tactics, but the Coalition went through them like a hot knife through butter. china has a lot of troops (and soviet equipment and tactics), but the question is how to equip them and get them anywhere but china?

Hopefully, there will be no war, but if there is, china is where the chinese troops will die.

[edit on 2/7/2006 by centurion1211]







[edit on 8-2-2006 by st3ve_o]




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
hmm it seems that according to reference 61 in the book of modern military financial accountancy published by the UN that china appear to be preparing for a nuclear manufactoring process as they are spending there billions on the science of nuclear fission whereby china could produce any number of weapons of mass destruction at the cost of almost nothing compared to the US and Turkey this makes me wonder how China's military structure is going to be enforced on any number of enemies.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Also there army is huge... so they can use more to supply there soldiers.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by thawyze]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Just a thought here...."it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog" I would think that our troops are more motivated to fight & defend than the chineese are. A group of soldiers that are poorly trained and have little motivation would not be a match for U.S. troops
Just my .02....



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
well that all depends what the fight (war) was all about!!


your american right? say if russia suddenly attacked new york - the statue of liberty gone & many thousands of lifes lost!!

how would that make you feel inside?? would that make you more determined in a war, RATHER if you knew you was fighting a war just for poltical gain (ie. we've seen that recently) OIL??

it's all part about being human my friend, REVENGE and 'EMOTION'

so you mention the chinese troops would be no match for the US toops!!that's just your (maybe biased) point of view about your countrys troops.

my (maybe biased) point of view is the british has the best trained troops in the world.

(the point i'm getting at), you ask any chinese person and i'm sure they would be willing to die for their own country just as any american would if defending your countrys honour.






Originally posted by fitzwell
Just a thought here...."it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog" I would think that our troops are more motivated to fight & defend than the chineese are. A group of soldiers that are poorly trained and have little motivation would not be a match for U.S. troops
Just my .02....




[edit on 8-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
To say that a place like China lacks technology is in my opinion not quite accurate, where is your stereo made, your TV? Heck, I wouldn't doubt if US military hardware contains Chinese electronic parts.

They have the infrastrucure and it's growing, the US has infrastructure and it's dying, much the US manufacturing capability has been outsourced to China for many years now.
At 10% growth a year, they are advancing quite rapidly and now make some of the highest quality goods in the world.


I'm sure the US military does have some components "made in China", But nothing critical or advanced is made there.

Yeah, Most of your everyday stuff is from China...Thats because there workers work for next to nothing. You make China Sound really wealthy...But a large majority of China is dirt poor, people living in little huts.
The US's economy continues to grow, but China's is growing faster.

As for tech...Its much much easier to play catch up...then staying in the lead.



Originally posted by st3ve_o
china has the biggest military manpower in the world/the biggest naval fleet in the world.

china as the fastest growing economy in the world (a land rich full of human resources), and they WILL be the next superpower i have no doubts about that.

biggest Navy!!!

And having a billion man Army is just to sound good...They dont have near a capability to make that happen, the logistics would be next to impossible.

People often think in 20 years China will surpass the US as the worlds leading super power, But that would only happen if the US kept things how they are now...But in 20 years the US military will be much more advanced, I would guess in 20 years...China will still need at least another decade just to catch up. And thats if they stay in the direction that they are currently in, But in that much time anything can happen to make them fall.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
please murcielago, i hope your not one of those who thinks america is the centre of the universe and nowhere else exists (if your not one of those i apologize).

but define the word 'superpower' for me!!

if in your view of a 'superpower' is in a military sence, then the US is not all THAT far advanced to other military powers (france, UK, russia and china).

the only reason america is classed as a 'superpower' in a military sence is due to the nuclear arsenal they piled up on during the 'cold war'.

i'll define the word 'superpower'

(strong economy, political status, military, human resources) - now tell me with these 4 things why china can't achive the 'so called' superpower status??

are they not on there way in achiving it already??




[edit on 8-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o

you gave me iraq as an example, i give you vietnam!! - vietnam is a small country yet the US (with all its might) lost that war.


Again, you need to study history, especially military history. The reason for the "loss" in viet nam was purely politcal. The U.S. military was forced to fight with basically both hands tied behind it's back. So many key targets were declared off limits by the politicos back in Washington D.C. Even so, the NVA was defeated whenever there was a real battle. Tet offensive was a perfect example. Militarily, the communists were defeated everywhere in the country, but they were able to score a political victory by making people start to question the war.

Please do some more research before posting further on this or any other military subject.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o

your american right? say if russia suddenly attacked new york - the statue of liberty gone & many thousands of lifes lost!!
Just my .02....
[edit on 8-2-2006 by st3ve_o]


Getting tired of being your history teacher.


No need for your 'what ifs', since we all remember quite well the 9/11 attacks.


The hardest part now is dealing with all the idiots that think the U.S. is being 'too mean' to the people/governments that caused and/or supported the attack.

Regarding the motivation factor, history shows over and over that an unmotivated military will be the loser. Check out the iraq wars for examples of that, too. Since the U.S. is unlikely to attack china unless attacked first, it's pretty easy to tell whose side the motivation would be on. Remember, too, that the U.S. military is all volunteer which will always be more motivated than a military made up of draftees.

BTW, IMO that's about the right value for what you wrote.


[edit on 2/8/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by st3ve_o

you gave me iraq as an example, i give you vietnam!! - vietnam is a small country yet the US (with all its might) lost that war.


Again, you need to study history, especially military history. The reason for the "loss" in viet nam was purely politcal. The U.S. military was forced to fight with basically both hands tied behind it's back. So many key targets were declared off limits by the politicos back in Washington D.C. Even so, the NVA was defeated whenever there was a real battle. Tet offensive was a perfect example. Militarily, the communists were defeated everywhere in the country, but they were able to score a political victory by making people start to question the war.

Please do some more research before posting further on this or any other military subject.


lol..well thats STILL a lost war
- the american intelligence and govenmnet KNEW what they was getting into before they went to vietnam!!

i advice you to take your own advice m8 and study history
i'll tell you some of the key factors about america's loss in vietnam

1) america underestimated the tenacity and organisation of the VC and NVA

2) the ‘Peoples war’ - gorilla warfare tactics

3) LOADSSSS of questions were asked about the efficiency of the american troops (desertion rate was high/drug problems/morale was low/many troops were just counting the days until there time was finished etc)

4) america was not prepared for the high number of casualties they sustained in a 'jungle war', which for many americans they were not suited and prepared for that type of environment.

5) yes, all protests back in america demanding a US withdrawl played a part in the 'eventual' withdrawl of the US forces in Vietnam also.

but vietemn was a bit more than 'politics' as you put it m8 - i would put it down to underestimating the enemy!!

anyway thats all i'm going to say about this now, the thread going wayyy off subject and its just making me look the bad guy in all this.



[edit on 8-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
The only reason for the "loss" at Vietnam was because of the ridiculous "rules of engagement" that the high-ups in Washington imposed upon the troops.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Then how about the war between China and U.S(or united nations, 16 countries?) in north korea? China even doesn't have air plane at that time.

I know the north korea war is called "forgotten war" in U.S, right?

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by st3ve_o

you gave me iraq as an example, i give you vietnam!! - vietnam is a small country yet the US (with all its might) lost that war.


Again, you need to study history, especially military history. The reason for the "loss" in viet nam was purely politcal. The U.S. military was forced to fight with basically both hands tied behind it's back. So many key targets were declared off limits by the politicos back in Washington D.C. Even so, the NVA was defeated whenever there was a real battle. Tet offensive was a perfect example. Militarily, the communists were defeated everywhere in the country, but they were able to score a political victory by making people start to question the war.

Please do some more research before posting further on this or any other military subject.


[edit on 8-2-2006 by google_abcd]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
please murcielago, i hope your not one of those who thinks america is the centre of the universe and nowhere else exists (if your not one of those i apologize).

of course not. But I try and think realistically...And realisticaly speaking China Is no where near "superpower" status.
I think of a Superpower by a nation being at the top of the hill, meaning military and economy.


st3ve_o
if in your view of a 'superpower' is in a military sence, then the US is not all THAT far advanced to other military powers (france, UK, russia and china).

ahh, yes it is. Russia has a rusting military. France is of couse the most powerfull country in Europe...But they simply are not near being referred to as a Superpower. UK, has a pretty small Air Force & Navy when compared to the US, so there not a contender, althought they are a good ally.
And China...There military uses virtually all of old Russian equiptment, Theres Army is to big to move, There Air force is weak, and there Navy isn't global. The US is sometimes refered to as the worlds Police...because of its ever reaching grip...It doesn't stick to the US' shore lines, The US Navy can go virtually anywhere it wants, with use of carriers and subs, among many other ships. The USAF has bombers that could strike China...without China knowing what happened, and has a fighter that OWNS the skies.
Most see China's military build up as a threat to Taiwan...Not the US.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
i personally don't see another 'superpower' as a threat!!

i actaully i think it will be good for the world, what actaully scares me is just ONE global superpower, i guess its something we'll have to wait and see on though.

i don't think i can change your opinion on whats going to happen and you certainly can't change mine


about france being the most powerfull country in europe, do a search on google and i think your facts will be wrong


(www.google.co.uk...)

the UK as an advange over other countrys in the EU followed by france then russia (britain only lost its empire status 60 years ago).

that stuff doesn't interest me though


anyway i'll ttyl man, nice discussing and debating things with you



Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by st3ve_o
please murcielago, i hope your not one of those who thinks america is the centre of the universe and nowhere else exists (if your not one of those i apologize).

of course not. But I try and think realistically...And realisticaly speaking China Is no where near "superpower" status.
I think of a Superpower by a nation being at the top of the hill, meaning military and economy.


st3ve_o
if in your view of a 'superpower' is in a military sence, then the US is not all THAT far advanced to other military powers (france, UK, russia and china).

ahh, yes it is. Russia has a rusting military. France is of couse the most powerfull country in Europe...But they simply are not near being referred to as a Superpower. UK, has a pretty small Air Force & Navy when compared to the US, so there not a contender, althought they are a good ally.
And China...There military uses virtually all of old Russian equiptment, Theres Army is to big to move, There Air force is weak, and there Navy isn't global. The US is sometimes refered to as the worlds Police...because of its ever reaching grip...It doesn't stick to the US' shore lines, The US Navy can go virtually anywhere it wants, with use of carriers and subs, among many other ships. The USAF has bombers that could strike China...without China knowing what happened, and has a fighter that OWNS the skies.
Most see China's military build up as a threat to Taiwan...Not the US.




[edit on 8-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
i personally don't see another 'superpower' as a threat!!

I'm suprised to hear that. Being that the Cold war was almost the end of Russia and the US, on a few occations it came to just a hair away from MAD.


st3ve_o
i actaully i think it will be good for the world, what actaully scares me is just ONE global superpower, i guess its something we'll have to wait and see on though.

I see why you would think that...But the one in charge is a good one at least, If it was a communist country in charge then I would agree with you.
The US has the means to wipe any country off the map, with know one capabable of stopping them...Conventional or Nuclear, and yet they dont.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
But what about thier navy and air force this is something i really want to know like how it compares to Britian or anothe country that has almost the same number


and is France relly the strongest nation in the eu? i thought it was Brition



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I personally believe its the UK as well that is the most powerful country in Europe. They could be much more powerful militarily if it were a larger country, with more resources. The place countries like the US, Russia, and China ect. have the advantage is resources(i.e. lots of land.) China is still limited by the enourmous size of its population. Russia is limited by its economic problems that they are still working out. The US is the only country that can truly sustain "Superpower" status. China may be able to in the future. But not just yet. The only thing limiting the UK is its lack of land resources and its smaller economy, though thats a mighty big hump to crawl over, its the same issue European countries all face, lack of space and the resources that come with it.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Here's a link on the financial side of things..

www.armedforces.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
hi, i don't think the size is a factor with the UK.

afterall britain is small country (in size) but in population we have over 60 million people living here.

i do know where your coming from though, but at present britain is the 4th richest country in the world - and at its peak, the British Empire was the largest formal empire that the world had ever known.

the land size factor as never stopped us in the past and i don't think it will stop britain growing in the future.


Originally posted by ludaChris
I personally believe its the UK as well that is the most powerful country in Europe. They could be much more powerful militarily if it were a larger country, with more resources. The place countries like the US, Russia, and China ect. have the advantage is resources(i.e. lots of land.) China is still limited by the enourmous size of its population. Russia is limited by its economic problems that they are still working out. The US is the only country that can truly sustain "Superpower" status. China may be able to in the future. But not just yet. The only thing limiting the UK is its lack of land resources and its smaller economy, though thats a mighty big hump to crawl over, its the same issue European countries all face, lack of space and the resources that come with it.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
cheers for that, wow its amazing how much the US spends on its military and 'WHY' it spends that amount


anyone would think the cold war was still on



Originally posted by SteveR
Here's a link on the financial side of things..

www.armedforces.co.uk...


[edit on 9-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join