A World of Paper Tigers, like China!

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I have seen many discussions on these boards about this county and that country being the next Super Power. But, yet I have seen little proof and if we look at past performance it is very dismal!

Let's look at the five largest militaries in the World by personel.

1) China
2) United States
3) Russia
4) India
5) North Korea

China

Very large land army of 2.3 million, with 1.5 reserve militia and 1.0 armed police for a total of 4.8 million. 50 divisions with 3 Airborne Divisions and 2 Marine Bridgades. Very impressive.

The air force has 220,000 personnel, 100 Surface to Air Sites, 16,000 AA Guns, Just under 3,000 aircraft. So-So.

The navy has 350,000 personnel, of those 34,000 are for naval aviation, 38,000 costal defence and 56,500 marines. 700 Ship Navy of which only about 70 are capitol ships and only a handful are modern.

Recent War Performance

Vietnam (1979) - Month long war, China was unable to mobilize over half of its forces and quarter of it army. 25% casualty rate and they were repelled, very poor performance.

Sino-Soviet Border Conflict (1969) - Very small incident, China was unable to make advances. So-so performance.

Sino-Indian War (1962) - Chinese Victory, first since the revolution and ousting of Chiang Kai-Shek. It was a mixed bag, the Chinese were unable to advance on their victory and declared a cease fire. The Indian defence minister resigned in disgrace. Indian increased its support of the Tibetian rebels.

Korea (1952-3) - Allied with North Korea, supported North Korea against allied advances. High casualties, performance was adequate, but not strong enough to expell the US and UN forces. They war showed the man power of China in a ground war. Very good performance. Since that time North Korea has been a drain on China militarily and economically.

As you can see, China is barely able to project its military power beyond its own border. They are currently projecting economic power all over the world, but if you can't back it up carrier group or a marine assault division it is what it is!

While China is modernizing it will be hard pressed to catch up to the US and NATO powers. Meanwhile unrest is building through out China, in Tibet, Hong Kong, Manchuria, etc.

China's military is pinned down in its own land trying to hold the house of cards built on the Communist Revolution, held together by corrupt and ruthless political leadership and pushing the day of reckoning with the introduction of free market captialism!

The other countries on the list, other than the US are not the up and coming world military powers that you think, there militaries are mainly defensive and for internal control of their own populations.

The United States is still the 800 lb canary and its only rivals are the NATO forces and Israel.

IMHO!



[edit on 2/4/07 by mel1962]




posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I think Israel stands as the worlds next super power. Speaking strictly in military terms. Israel has all the technology that the US has, and every person in their country can be considered to be a member of their military since they are all required to serve at least 2 or 3 years, I can't remember which.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
lol


so you want to see china invading some one?


1)
china sucked terribly back then in the "cold war era" which china didn't fully participate.
if i remembered correctly, the last time they tried to recapture taiwan (which is about 50 years ago), they got terribly owned by taiwan's defence, and suffered a 100% casualty.

no one considered china to be powerful untill only very recently (since about the year 2001).

paper or not, we don't know, since china never fought anyone over the last 20 or 30 years.
but as for now, china does not have to capability to compete with the US in a military showdown.


2)
a problem with israel is that they don't have any land to hold them back.
Use Russia for example, the reason why german has lost to USSR in WW2 was because that USSR has such a huge land and resources, that german can't keep up with. but israel has non, all they have is tech and troops. but no land or resource.
that's why irsael can't be compared with the US in terms of "superpower", the US has about the world's best strategic location. Irsael on the other hand can literally be wiped out with one nuke.

3)
NATO is not an opposition to the US, it's an organiztion led by the US!

i think you meant EU (european union)

[edit on 2/4/2007 by warset]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
agreed about israel. But IMHO, strictly in military terms, only that country rivals the US.

[edit on 2/4/0707 by Dirkadirkastani]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
lol

like i said, once iran gets their nuke, they can wipe irael out easily, if they don't have the moral holding them back.

but again, that propably will never happen



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Israel already destroyed Iran's nuclear plant once, and they just assassinated one of their nuclear scientists. I bet it's only a matter of time before either the US or Mossad takes out the enrichment center. Article

That site is down right now but you should be able to see if when it comes back up. If not let me know and I'll search Google to find it somewhere else.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dirkadirkastani
I think Israel stands as the worlds next super power. Speaking strictly in military terms. Israel has all the technology that the US has, and every person in their country can be considered to be a member of their military since they are all required to serve at least 2 or 3 years, I can't remember which.


With the greatest respect Israel is a small nation. Just because it has conscripion does not mean that it has a military that is of any significance if taken out of it geographical context.

Depending on where you look, Israeli military expenditure is a fifth the UK and comparable European nations. Israel is on a par with the Netherlands as far as miltary spend.

Regards



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
mel, I think its popular for the anti-americans to speculate the downfall of america, or for some other country to surpass us in the near future. Which is nothing more then the ole "wishing in one hand while #ting in the other" technique.


China will be a powerful nation sometime in the distant future. It will undoubtedly surpass the EU and Japan. The question is will it be in americas league? Probably not, atleast not in 2030.

This is a pretty good read by the futurist, it goes into great depth about what it takes for any nation to become a superpower. And it compares China and the US.... Its a good read.

futurist.typepad.com...


I regards to Isreals military. They recieve i believe about $3 billion dollars a year in aid by the US for their military. I actually think its a bit more then that, but that is one of the more common estimates that is floating around the net. I really think isreal has the second or third best military in the world. France and the UK could be a tie for third. Isreal is just so battle hardend, and they do receive alot of their tech from the US.

[edit on 042828p://3902pm by semperfoo]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by warset
lol


1)
china sucked terribly back then in the "cold war era" which china didn't fully participate.
if i remembered correctly, the last time they tried to recapture taiwan (which is about 50 years ago), they got terribly owned by taiwan's defence, and suffered a 100% casualty.

no one considered china to be powerful untill only very recently (since about the year 2001).



OR until clinton sold china american technology in return for compaign contributions.




2)
a problem with israel is that they don't have any land to hold them back.
Use Russia for example, the reason why german has lost to USSR in WW2 was because that USSR has such a huge land and resources, that german can't keep up with. but israel has non, all they have is tech and troops. but no land or resource.
that's why irsael can't be compared with the US in terms of "superpower", the US has about the world's best strategic location. Irsael on the other hand can literally be wiped out with one nuke.



I would agree. I define a superpower as anyone with an active manned space program or anyone with the ability to project their military presence easily in the world.




3)
NATO is not an opposition to the US, it's an organiztion led by the US!

i think you meant EU (european union)

[edit on 2/4/2007 by warset]


Right,


NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and was formed to protect member nations from a soviet assault. It was agreed that an attack by the USSR on a NATO member would be considered an attack against all members. In response, the soviets created the warsaw pact.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dirkadirkastani
agreed about israel. But IMHO, strictly in military terms, only that country rivals the US.


Uh... no. Israel's military is highly dependent upon the US for money, technology and systems. Furthermore they don't have the size, firepower, technological or logistical capabilities of the US. Nor can they project power like we can. Don't get me wrong Israel has a powerful military but they are not in the same category as the US, they are the strongest regional power though.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Westpoint is indeed correct. Israel has some good equipment, good technology, good training, and everything else you need to be effective in combat. The problem that they're more of a defense force. They could hold off an attack by all their neighbors I'd bet, or even hold off a US invasion force for a bit with good performance. But you couldn't ask them to go invade the whole rest of the Middle East or the US, that's not what they're setup to do. And I can't say that it's such a bad thing to have a good defensive force.

But force projection is just something they don't have outside of their region. I realize that their special forces units proved that Israel has a long reach by rescuing hostages in Uganda I think it was, but they can't make massive force deployments like the US or USSR could've.

Same goes for China, and probably Russia and the EU to a lesser extent. China's force projection capabilities are pretty short range, while Russia's are questionable, and only a few of the EU's members have proper force projection abilities (mostly just the UK and France). Although I'm interested to see what kind of force projection the EU, India and China will be creating for themselves.

Oh and Semperfoo, that was a pretty interesting read. Thanks for that link.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Yeah that was a very enlightening [edit: incredibly articulate, encompassing and concise] article. Thanks for that. It does go to explain why the US would be the first country that you would want to enact a police state in as well. If someone did in fact have plans to do such a thing. The rest of the world would inevitably follow.

[edit on 2/5/0707 by Dirkadirkastani]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo

This is a pretty good read by the futurist, it goes into great depth about what it takes for any nation to become a superpower. And it compares China and the US.... Its a good read.

futurist.typepad.com...
[edit on 042828p://3902pm by semperfoo]


This is an excellent read, and also a must read to help counter the 'hate america first' people here on ATS and elsewhere that love to fantasize about Ameirca's downfall.



China, with an economy of $2.2 trillion in nominal (not PPP) terms, would have to grow at 12% a year for the next 25 years straight to achieve the same size, which is already faster than its current 9-10% rate, if even that can be sustained for so long (no country, let alone a large one, has grown at more than 8% over such a long period). In other words, the progress that the US economy would make from 1945 to 2030 (85 years) would have to be achieved by China in just the 25 years from 2005 to 2030. Even then, this is just the total GDP, not per capita GDP, which would still be merely a fourth of America's.


and this part ...


Of the ten points above, Europe and Japan have tried for decades, and have only achieved parity with the US on maybe two of these dimensions at most. China will surpass Europe and Japan by 2030 by achieving perhaps two or possibly even three out of these ten points, but attaining all ten is something I am willing to confidently bet against. The dream of anti-Americans who relish the prospect of any nation, even a non-democratic one, surpassing the US is still a very distant one.


and last ...


A point that many bring up is that empires have always risen and fallen throughout history. This is partly true, but note that the Roman Empire lasted for over 1000 years after its peak. Also note that the British Empire never actually collapsed since Britain is still one of the the top seven countries in the world today, and the English language is the most widely spoken in the world. Britain was merely surpassed by its descendant, with whom it shares a symbiotic relationship.


Keep dreaming away, all you America haters (both "foreign and domestic"). While you're dreaming, the U.S. will be moving the '2030 goal' you're trying to reach out to 2050 or beyond. By then I guess you'll have to pass your dream on to your kids or just finally accept reality.

[edit on 2/5/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dirkadirkastani
Israel already destroyed Iran's nuclear plant once,


If you are referring to the nuclear plant at Osirak, that was an Iraqi plant not Iranian.

China has always had a problem with Power Projection. The Chinese Army is only a threat to countries that border China. I have always questioned the actual number of soldiers in the Chinese Army. I want to know if the people who work in the factories run by the Chinese Army are counted as soldiers?

The majority of Chinese troops deployed in Korea, marched in. My father was with the US Marines during the Korea Conflict. He told me that the Chinese would send five men into an attack with only one weapon. If the man with the weapon was injured or killed one of the others was to take the weapon from him and continue the attack.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
No. China is no where near being powerful enough to do anything interregional

www.abovepolitics.com...

Read that. A comprehensive look at China.

China has a big army, but little funds, little technology. Saddam had the worlds 4th largest army in Gulf War 1... he marched on Kuwait and America destroyed it within a few days. We actually had to stop the war because we killed so many so fast. Over Kill. 4th largest army in the world. Pretty big achievement.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Not to mention lack of experience by China since fighting against Vietnam, Soviet Union, mostly minor. Major war was in Korea, practically over half century ago.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
China may have a lot of people, a lot of land and a large ground force, but that's not all it takes to be a superpower. They have so many infrastructure problems right now that need to be addressed before they can think about even using their military to threaten, let alone actually invade.

With regard to Israel, they'll never be a superpower. Too small, surrounded by countries that are hostile toward them, not enough resources to support themselves, etc. They're not even the most powerful nation in their own region, let alone the world.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Thank you all for your 2 cents, the point of my post was to point out that the difference between the United States and the rest of the world is great. Especially when looking at the projection of power around the world. Could the USA invade China and win certainly not, could we defend Tiawan very easily! Could the USA invade Russia and win certainly not, could we defend Europe and Japan, yes! IMHO! Israel is merely a regional power that can project power 1 country beyond their borders if the USA lets them!



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Isreal can technically project power well beyond their borders if required. But then again this is limited to the middle east.

China has only one major disadvantage IMO..
It is 'on its own' and in isolation.. It doesn't have a entourage as the US did post WWII. No real buffer states, and ideological consensus beyond its borders.
If it were to align itself with other regional powers or coerce them into aligning with itself, then it would project a more formidable front than it does today. Unfortunately all regional powers jockey fo supremacy and thus inevitabley hold each other down. Good enough for the US as long as this happens.

EDIT: and though many may want to shy away from it(including me), the fact is Israel didn't quite do too well in Lebanon recently. All said, IMHO they didn't acheive what they set out to do in Lebanon: cripple Hezbollah for good.
And Hezbollah was not some regional power as well. Lets not give too much credit to the Israeli war machine of today. Maybe they've rusted over the last few decades of peace or their adversaries have finally acquired some sense in warfare..or a bit of both.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Although I'm interested to see what kind of force projection the EU, India and China will be creating for themselves.

Oh and Semperfoo, that was a pretty interesting read. Thanks for that link.


Well I don't know much about the EU, I think they're aiming to maintain the same force projection capabilities they've possessed for some time now, if not trying to reduce them(strategic deterrent reduction/tridents etc)..

China is looking for economic(and eventually military I presume) projection in the Africas and South America. Though their military capabilities in these regions are non-existent at the present, this is an interesting area to watch for Chinese growth.
China is also actively pursuing influence in the central asian republics with the SCO and what not. Here again there aren't many military assets to speak of. Infact the Chinese are comparatively weaker in the west on military terms. Only now have they given importance to the Tibetian province and the surroundings.

India, maybe I'm a little biased here, but I see India finally ditching the 'Gandhian' policy of being a 'non-aligned'/soft state that is content with its regional status.
India looks at the Indian ocean as 'its' ocean and has invested a great deal in achieving and maintaining dominance here. With 2 a/c carriers to be in service by 2015(and possibly one more in the future), a rapidly growing navy(some 10-15 blue water capable surface vessels coming into service), and a AF with decent a/c,air re-fueling etc.. India seems set to roam the Indian Ocean unchallenged. India is also looking towards the Middle East(hence it still maintains a close relationship with Iran), and has boosted Israeli defence cooperation ten-fold in the last few years. With foreign AFBs(MiG 29s) in countries like Tajikistan, India seems to havea a foothold in central Asia as well. Again naval manuevers in South East Asia and even as far as the Pacific, India is making waves there as well.

Some points on the Semperfoo article.
That article dictates the only way to superpowerdom is the american way.
I also agree that America will still be a bigwig in 2030, but definitely not as it was in the 80s and the 90s.Its educational prowess has been a great source of income, but we need to look at how many of these graduates are now returning to their countries of origin.

Anyways I have a lot to say about that article.. maybe another time..

Another very important thing China needs to do is increase the English-speaking population tremendously. That is something it is severely lacking in even now IMHO..





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join