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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

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.




So interesting...How about US not being a superpower and not being a world police? Then there will be no Cold War in the next few decades


[edit on 9-2-2006 by google_abcd]




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Manpower available for military service: 342,956,265 (2005 est.)
Manpower fit for military service: 281,240,272 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $67.49 billion (2004)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.3% (2004)

Active Military Personnel: 1,750,000
Frontline Personnel: 1,400,000

Airborne Units: 9,218
Armor: 13,200
Artillery: 29,060
Infantry Support Weapons: 34,000
Missile Defense Systems: 18,500
+ approx. 50 ICBMs

Source; CIA intelligence reports



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
That's pretty impressive.

Revelations in the bible speaks of an army of 200 million going to war in the Mid east during armageddon.
ONE army in the world that can do that is China.

I am an agnostic, but I do give bible prophecy credibility, it's interesting.

Don't underestimate China, I believe they can take ANY army on, and win. They will strike at the right moment too, when their opponent is weak.

Any one here realise that if China wanted to they could cripple the American economy and war machine almost overnight, they do carry American debt and support the American economy.

China owns you.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
There is alot more to a army/navy/airforce than it's equipment and strategy. On the whole the US Navy ( without wich the army is not going anywhere) is not the force it should be or could have been. Between 2000 and 2003 10 000 American sailors failed their drug tests... Considering how many are tested and how hard it is to find modern drugs this is clearly only the tip of the iceberg...

Anyways for a good read on why other navies should not be underestimated , while the US navy is so vastly overated, i suggest everyone interested gives the following a read.

www.g2mil.com...

Stellar



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
Don't underestimate China, I believe they can take ANY army on, and win.

under??? ya kidding?'
Everything I read everyone OVERestimates China's military strength.
And I think your dead wrong on the Army thing.
The number of troops you have means absolutely nothing if you cant controll t your skies. The US can take command of any sky around the world...and once you own the sky...You can drop bombs on millions of troops, they wouldn't stand a chance.


Toadmund
Any one here realise that if China wanted to they could cripple the American economy and war machine almost overnight, they do carry American debt and support the American economy.
China owns you.

lol, please.
The moment China tried to "cripple" the American Economy they would be doing the exact same to themselves.
and the "war machine" wouldn't stop if the economy failed.
China and US have large economic ties...Which is a big big reason why they wont ever go head to head...at least in the forseable future.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
You can drop bombs on millions of troops, they wouldn't stand a chance.


Don't forget, infantry has AA capacity in several ways.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Murcielago
You can drop bombs on millions of troops, they wouldn't stand a chance.


Don't forget, infantry has AA capacity in several ways.


That doesn't mean much to cruise missiles, B-2 bombers, F-22A Raptors, etc.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
The US can take command of any sky around the world...and once you own the sky...You can drop bombs on millions of troops, they wouldn't stand a chance.

====

you don't know much about warfare do you m8??
- i think you've been playing 'command & conquer' too much!!

[edit on 9-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
The US can take command of any sky around the world...and once you own the sky...You can drop bombs on millions of troops, they wouldn't stand a chance.

====

you don't know much about warfare do you m8??
- i think you've been playing 'command & conquer' too much!!

[edit on 9-2-2006 by st3ve_o]


I've never played the game.

well...go on...and explain why i'm wrong.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
He's right about the Air Force being the most powerful element in war.. but doesn't it go against war conventions to just drop bombs on "millions" of troops?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
but doesn't it go against war conventions to just drop bombs on "millions" of troops?


of course not. Iraq should have hidden some bombers and used them once our army invaded to take out our troops, but they didn't, and they lost.

You use whatever you have available to win a war.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

I've never played the game.

well...go on...and explain why i'm wrong.


ok i'll explain,

you say.... "The US can take command of any sky around the world...and once you own the sky...You can drop bombs on millions of troops, they wouldn't stand a chance"

i don't really want to say this but i say 'vietnam' again!! - didn't the vietnamese stand a 'chance?' how come america lost the war then?? :/

i'll take you back to something i said previously in this thread.... "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".

I don't believe america as the best troops!! - this time i take you to 'iraq'

how many british soldiers have been killed by the americans due to friendly fire during the 1st and 2nd gulf war? how many targets have been missed by the US in iraq? how long did it take the US military to control bagdad?

now look at british forces, how many targets have the british military missed (0 - or not many if they have) how many american lifes have been lost due to british friendly fire? (0) - look how quickly it took for the british troops to control basra??

thats why i say the british troops are the best tranined in the world (combat and in peacekeeping).

i'll tell why you always heard about america missing target after target in iraq and WHY many british servicemen lost their lifes due to friendly fire!! - its because its 'american mentality' - fire 100 missles off and HOPEFULLY one will hit!!

thats what scares me about your country, and thats why i said it scares me with just 'one' global superpower, because i honestly feel america is not responsible nor are they capable of such a title.

in the 21st centry the word 'superpower' means RESPONSIBILITY, the word 'superpower' doesn't mean invading small defenceless countrys just for political gain (ie:- oil, iraq/iran) those countrys can only throw sticks and stones to defend itself compared to those 2 military powers who have invaded iraq!!

but we all know its for oil, and we all know iran is next - and i GUARANTEE after iran they will be this 'food for oil' thing aswell (or so they will tell the press and public)


but put it this way, MORE oil will go from iraq and iran than UK and US put into the country!!

so for all this war on the middle-east for 'oil' can you now see why i said it scares me with just one global superpower? - and why america isn't ready (nor deserve) that title?

a quote from one of your earlyer posts about just 1 global superpower in the world:-

"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"

DON'T? i like the last word!!
- do you HONESTLY believe that? - and do you honestly believe they are not TRYING to??


anyway sorry for rambling on, i tend to do that.

later


[edit on 9-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

There Ary is rediculous....reported at 1 billion....except for the fact they wouldn't have enough guns for everyone.

.


Every estimate I heard puts the amount of military age men china could in theory field at about 200-250 million. Which is still a insane number when you consider the most prolific rifle ever created the AK-47 and all its variants number about 50 million in total.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   

st3ve_o
i don't really want to say this but i say 'Vietnam' again!! - didn't the Vietnamese stand a 'chance?' how come America lost the war then?? :/

uhg... I thought you have already being corrected on this topic.

That was purely political.




st3ve_o
i'll take you back to something i said previously in this thread.... "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 basically a waste of time".

Our Airmen & Troops are trained good.
Oh, and to the British-Iraq thing: The comparison is just dumb...its not on the same playing field.
Example: If 100 Americans were driving their car and 10 crashed. And 10 Britians were driving their car and 1 crashed...are you telling me that the British are the better drivers.


and I think we took Baghdad pretty quick. and again you comparisons are off...
Since Baghdad is like 3-4 times bigger then basrah.



st3ve_o
and thats why i said it scares me with just 'one' global superpower, because i honestly feel America is not responsible nor are they capable of such a title.

Please.

America could of conquered the entire world if it wanted to...its has had that ability for awhile. The fact that we have the largest and most impressive military of all time and dont go attacking every country we dont like, shows great strength/restraint.

And the Iraq war had very very little to do with Oil!!!

You talk about the "Oil for food program", as if were making money off of going to war...Then you couldn't be more wrong.



st3ve_o
do you HONESTLY believe that? - and do you honestly believe they are not TRYING to?

Trying to what? Take out every country on earth??? of course not. Please dont tell me your one of those NWO people...In which case I’m wasting my time even responding to, since all those people are complete whack jobs.

BTW, I'm assuming that you live in the UK...right?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
How about this, Vietname was supported by a super power, that super power was China, now three years after we left Vietname China invaded it! After Vietnam joined the Soviet-dominated Council for Mutual Economic Cooperation (Comecon) and signed the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union in 1978, China branded Vietnam the "Cuba of the East" and called the treaty a military alliance.

Difference is Iraq is not backed by a super power, its a desert, it had real soviet hardware, there T-80's didnt have the full soviet equiped armor, everyinth was dumbed down about there fighting force in terms of soviet technology which is now being produced again by Russia. Yes Russia is finally going back into arms making. Look at that new missle they launched recently that can change directions at 1 mph to mach 10.

Plus the proper term for Vietname was "Indochina War" not Vietname war if you want to get technical since that whole area was fighting since the late 40's...

Summary of that incident

"On February 17, 1979 about 120,000 Chinese forces invaded Vietnam and seized several Vietnamese towns. Vietnamese forces put up stiff resistance, including using divisions that had been relocated from Cambodia, but the PRC was able to advance about 25 miles into Vietnamese territory and were able to capture the important northern town of Lang Son. A separate Chinese force attacked the coastal town of Quang Yen and captured it after several days of intense fighting. The Vietnamese attempted their own counter-offensive into the PRC's Yunnan province but were pushed back. The PRC withdrew its forces less than one month later, having declared their operations a success. No final treaty or settlement was ever reached."

www.globalsecurity.org...

I keep reading all this crap from you so called smart guys but none of you have even backed up your statements with any real facts or sources. Someone posted a old as CIA report on China which it said they have 50 ICBM's. They actually have 300+ ICBMS now, and now new and improved with multiple independently-targeted re-entry vehicle (MIRV) which are warheads that contain 12 warheads that come out when the nose cone opens during flight which was made for our missle defence, and actually now some have 24 (which is classified information to the public)

www.sinodefence.com... is the best source for the PLA tech and units.

OH and whats this www.sinodefence.com...
PENTAGON REPORT anyone a up to date one.
www.defenselink.mil...

[edit on 10-2-2006 by trIckz_R_fO_kIdz]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by trIckz_R_fO_kIdz
How about this, Vietname was supported by a super power, that super power was China, now three years after we left Vietname China invaded it!


lol, China was far from a super power back in the 60's and 70's, it isn't even one now
. The superpower who supported Vietnam was the USSR, it wasn't Chinese equipment they were using back then, but in some cases state of the art Soviet weaponry such as the SA-2 Guideline SAM.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   
China's military prowess is one not to be messed with. They are a formidible force that in the event of war, they would out number us about 4 to 1. As far as weaponry goes, one must remember that our trade deficit with them allows them really no ends to equip their fighting force.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   
"uhg... I thought you have already being corrected on this topic.
That was purely political".

(reply) no you have never corrected me on this topic, i made a long post explaining why america REALLY lost the vietnam war (noone replyed to me).

====
"Our Airmen & Troops are trained good.
Oh, and to the British-Iraq thing: The comparison is just dumb...its not on the same playing field.
Example: If 100 Americans were driving their car and 10 crashed. And 10 Britians were driving their car and 1 crashed...are you telling me that the British are the better drivers.

and I think we took Baghdad pretty quick. and again you comparisons are off... Since Baghdad is like 3-4 times bigger then basrah".

(reply) - bad example, crashing a car and actual military combat are TOTALLY different things!! - i'm not trying to argue with you with you on this point though, if you truly believe america as the best trained troops in the world, then thats your opinion and theres no way i can change that, but i have my views and there's certainly noway you can change mine


but one thing i will say though dude! do some research on things 'before you ACTUALLY post'

bagdad is iraq's capital with a population of 5 million, basra is iraq'a 2nd largest city with a population of 2.5 million (hardly 4 times as big is it)?


===

"Please.
America could of conquered the entire world if it wanted to...its has had that ability for awhile. The fact that we have the largest and most impressive military of all time and dont go attacking every country we dont like, shows great strength/restraint".


(reply) thats the american mentality i'm talking about!! george bush as the 'exact' same attitude, you only have to see his speaches on how he gets a buzz on whats happening over iraq and afghanistan.

(trys to copy g.bush) "america will crush its ememys *whilist clenching a fist* and we will win



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
We are also forgetting this little fact about history. Those who fail to control the seas, fail in war. The Spanish Armada, Napoleon, and Hitler all failed in one area eventually, and that was controlling the seas. And we all see where that got them. This is really where the UK succeeds, in their Navy. Its not huge or anything, but highly effective.

[edit on 2/10/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by trIckz_R_fO_kIdz
How about this, Vietname was supported by a super power, that super power was China, now three years after we left Vietname China invaded it!
[edit on 10-2-2006 by trIckz_R_fO_kIdz]


You do realize that China and Vietnam have fought each other before. In the late 70's there were border clashes between Vietnam and China. China did back the NVA agains the US and Southern Vietnam, but as Vietnam drew closer ties with the USSR, which China did not see eye to eye with, tensions grew. China and Vietnam are traditional enemies. China actually invaded Vietnam in 79.

Chinese-Vietnam War
Chinese-Vietnam War link 2

[edit on 2/10/2006 by ludaChris]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join