Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Does the U.S. really stand a chance?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I know the US is a powerful nation but gosh look at these numbers.

** China 14,555,000 Soldiers

** Iran 12,468,000 Soldiers

** North Korea 5,995,000 Soldiers

** United States 2,906,453 Soldiers

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 4-5-2006 by Event Horizon]




posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
So let me see here, your basing "powerful nation" status solely upon standing active army numbers?

In the studies of international relations, a hyperpower, superpower, or major/great power is derived from a set of varying criteria, and even that criteria is not entirely or clearly defined.

More here:
Definition: superpower and more





seekerof



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
You can have 100 million soldiers and if their equptment is WW2 surplus and they arent trained to fight in the modern battlefield.....they will be slaughtered
the days of massed charges against a immobile army are over.

Speed, intel, firepower....all count for MUCH more than just headcounts



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
The United States doesn't stand a chance of dealing with the chaos of an attack on Iran that could stretch from the egypt to central asia. The soldiers numbers of certain countries are irrelevant.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Saddam had the 5th largest army with some of the world's best equipment in Gulf War 1. He lost. Numbers don't count, which is why China won't invade Taiwan any time soon.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Stand a chance in What?, Where?, When?

Are you assuming all 4 nations will be in conflict at the same time? Where is this massive battlefield? ie who's 'at home', who's playing 'away' and who's a guest?

Don't you think little things like airpower, ability to project force (depoly troops, protect transport routes etc etc) might have a tiny part to play in any conflict?

US technical advantage gives them the upper hand in all conflict situations - poss exception being nuclear war when we all lose!



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I disagree. If the US were to go to war with any of those nations listed above it would be tough. Keep in mind they are still in two other conflicts. Everyone knows, with the exception of China, that they cant go head to head with us. They will adjust there tactics like Iraq did. They will let our armies come to them in there civilian populated cities.

Just because the US is more powerful, in many areas, doesnt mean they cant lose.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Event Horizon]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Event Horizon
I know the US is a powerful nation but gosh look at these numbers.

** China 14,555,000 Soldiers

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Event Horizon]


I can remember distinctly reading somewhere that the Chinese army was something around 200,000,000 soldiers, not 14,000,000.

BTW, you might want to add this to your "numbers"

The United States has been reported to have between 20,000 and 40,000 nuclear devices. Though these devices are also reportedly "dismantled", they can be remantled in a matter of minutes, if not seconds, should the need arise.

Also, I just did a research project on biological weapons for school, and found that the United States is estimated to control 80% of the biological weapons worldwide; somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000 tons of biological warfare, if not more.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
I can remember distinctly reading somewhere that the Chinese army was something around 200,000,000 soldiers, not 14,000,000.


No, the Chinese PLA has a standing army of 2.5 million troops. The Chinese have been in stage of force reduction, not inclination. They are reducing their forces in order to modernize them. This is proof alone that numerical superiority is a moot advantage to have on the modern battlefield, it just means more dead if they arent equiped and trained correctly.

There is absolutely no way the US has 80% of the biological weapons in the world. Countries like Russia, China, France, and UK have significant ammounts as well. But Russia and the US are the top dogs in this category, China probly not far behind. Read this.

US Biological Weapons

Russia and the US are both working together on arms reduction. While China has been not only developing their own arsenal but contributing to that of others.

Chinas BIO weps



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Well, the fact that the US holds 80% of bioweapons is also partially due to the fact that large amounts of the Soviet Union's were 'confiscated' after it's dismantlement.

When the BWC came about and the Geneva Protocol, around 77% of the biological weapons destroyed came from the U.S. as well, which should sort of point out the fact that the U.S. has HUGE amounts of them in stock.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I read the link you provided; it only seems to focus on times preceding the 1980s. I find it not very reliable since the United States actually stepped up its research in biological warfare around 1985; they publicly spend somewhere between 40 million and 400 million dollars annually on biological weapons research, some done by governmental organisations, such as subsidiaries of the DOD, and some is done by a select group of 24 college universities. These universities are pretty much forced to research and create new innovations in the biological weapons field. Some universities have declined to participate in such things, such as MIT, but were later forced to anyways, when the United States government threatened to cut off all funds to the school if they failed to comply.

Biological weapons is a HUGE thing in the United States though not many people seem to know about it. I also found a resource that claimed that thousands of tons of Biopreparat's biological weapon stocks were taken by the United States, along with many scientists that were involved in Soviet research, IN ADDITION to experimental data on the biological weapons that the Soviet's created. I'll see if I can dig up that source, along with others.

Just a sidenote, do you honestly believe for a second that the U.S. actually discontinued at all the production or research of biological weapons in the 70s...

The Soviet Union mass produced them all the way up until 1992, with Biopreparat's subsidiaries producing them possibly even later. The United States wouldn't stop, and at the same time allow others to continue; they may not publicly admit to it, but it can be strongly assumed.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Omniscient]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Saddam had the 5th largest army with some of the world's best equipment in Gulf War 1. He lost. Numbers don't count, which is why China won't invade Taiwan any time soon.


World's best equipment?!!
Iraq had just come out of a crippling 8 year long war(80'-88') with Iran which ended in a stalemate(Actually defeat for Iraq considering that they attacked first).
Also they had a very under-trained armed forces.
Don't club China and Iraq together...
Infact clubbing Iran and Iraq(1990 or 2003) is also a big miscomparision.

Also those paramilitary figures at the wikipedia site I feel are grossly exagerated.
12/14 million paramilitary forces??!!


China Ground Forces
This site numbers reserve forces at 1.5 million, not 15 million!!
I'll confirm for Iran.
Wikipedia credibility issues are becoming a real problem now..


[edit on 4-5-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by Nakash
Saddam had the 5th largest army with some of the world's best equipment in Gulf War 1. He lost. Numbers don't count, which is why China won't invade Taiwan any time soon.


World's best equipment?!!
Iraq had just come out of a crippling 8 year long war(80'-88') with Iran which ended in a stalemate(Actually defeat for Iraq considering that they attacked first).
Also they had a very under-trained armed forces.
Don't club China and Iraq together...
Infact clubbing Iran and Iraq(1990 or 2003) is also a big miscomparision.


Thats true but i think what is was getting at is that numbers dont matter, how is china gonna move those troops anywhere but china...they cant ie. a regional power. China has a long way before it can threaten us insterests anywhere. so i dont think a regional power is gonna take out the worlds most powerful military.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Event Horizon
I disagree. If the US were to go to war with any of those nations listed above it would be tough. Keep in mind they are still in two other conflicts. Everyone knows, with the exception of China, that they cant go head to head with us. They will adjust there tactics like Iraq did. They will let our armies come to them in there civilian populated cities.

Just because the US is more powerful, in many areas, doesnt mean they cant lose.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Event Horizon]

Well when you are fighting a country like iran or iraq, it would be almost impossilbe for them to do anything to the us army,they could not inflict a lot of damage and it would never be a threat to the army. Iraq never won a battle they take out a few troops at a time thats not a war. So to say that iran could inflict a lose is not likely. THat wasnt iraqs plan you idoit, thats the terrorist any random iraqs, saddam didnt do that. He was long in hiding when this started happening.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
UK has no bio weapons - IIRC there's an international treaty banning the production, storage & use of bio.

We also have no chem either



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
Well, the fact that the US holds 80% of bioweapons is also partially due to the fact that large amounts of the Soviet Union's were 'confiscated' after it's dismantlement.

When the BWC came about and the Geneva Protocol, around 77% of the biological weapons destroyed came from the U.S. as well, which should sort of point out the fact that the U.S. has HUGE amounts of them in stock.




Confiscated by whom? Given there were some sattelite states who inherited some of these weapons after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian Stockpile is still just as large as the US if not bigger. The Russians put more into R & D on Chem, Bio, Nukes than we did. Its a fact. Here is a list of still active Russian Bio weapons facilities, some in former sattelite states, but still active no less.

Russian Bio Facilities

I am unable to find the Chem/Bio stockpile info on either US, Russia, or China. But I am sure that the former USSR had just as large a stockpile as the US. I will continue looking to substantiate my claim. Got a link about the US holding 80% of the worlds bio weps? Just doesnt seem feasible with two other countries that spend/spent massive ammounts on bio weps.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Look at the break down of iran's numbers though:

768,000 Active Troops
700,000 Reserve Force
11,000,000 Paramilitary


Also notice, form the citation for the US, that the Army and Marines number
671,779.

Thats just short of what Iran has for its total Active Troops.


But whats it matter? There were a few dozen men at Rourke's Drift, and thousands of Zulus. At the end, there were just thousands of dead Zulus.

The overall size of the military is not useful as a predictor.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5

Thats true but i think what is was getting at is that numbers dont matter, how is china gonna move those troops anywhere but china...they cant ie. a regional power. China has a long way before it can threaten us insterests anywhere. so i dont think a regional power is gonna take out the worlds most powerful military.


hmmm..
But then again Taiwan is not out of Chinese reach. China has the tech to get a large part of that manopwer across the straits and it also has recently acquired/developed the tech to secure this transfer. Maybe talking about Japan anad other regions in the Pacific is not really in China's current reach but Taiwan sure is..



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Got a link about the US holding 80% of the worlds bio weps? Just doesnt seem feasible with two other countries that spend/spent massive ammounts on bio weps.



I'm still looking for it; I can't remember where I found it.

The thing that makes me believe that the U.S. has more bioweapons than Russia is that most of Russia's biological weapons research was conducted DURING the Soviet Union's existence, and has greatly slowed since it broke up. In contrast, the United States has continued to spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars on biological research alone, excluding whatever type of illegal production they are most likely taking part in.

Don't expect for me to post the link until tomorrow; I have lots of homework and am about to get off for the night. I'll find that link though.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by shortmanx5

Thats true but i think what is was getting at is that numbers dont matter, how is china gonna move those troops anywhere but china...they cant ie. a regional power. China has a long way before it can threaten us insterests anywhere. so i dont think a regional power is gonna take out the worlds most powerful military.


hmmm..
But then again Taiwan is not out of Chinese reach. China has the tech to get a large part of that manopwer across the straits and it also has recently acquired/developed the tech to secure this transfer. Maybe talking about Japan anad other regions in the Pacific is not really in China's current reach but Taiwan sure is..


Yea i would hope they could get some troops over there, but what about enough tanks and troops to make a differnt. And lets be honest the reason they arent going to invade is because of the usa, we said we would help them no matter what. I understand we could be bluffing but i dont think they are gonna try calling it. The russians didnt attack europe for one reason, we said you invade or nuke europe we nuke you. If the russians who were a superpower then and they didnt try to find out if we were bluffing, what makes you think china is going to risk war over alittle island... not likely,






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join