if you say chinas army is better than usa your are wrong

Who said that?Stikke

Why did you include people's physical condition. That is stupid. SymphonicWaves

[QUOTE="SymphonicWaves"]Why did you include people's physical condition. That is stupid. MrJesusisnthere

Chinese people will never rule the World. Europeans 4ever!slackersunited

[QUOTE="slackersunited"]Chinese people will never rule the World. Europeans 4ever!Dasc00

[QUOTE="Dasc00"][QUOTE="slackersunited"]Chinese people will never rule the World. Europeans 4ever!slackersunited

i've never seen a fat chinese person in my life.GeForce2187

[QUOTE="GeForce2187"]i've never seen a fat chinese person in my life.Stikke

Numbers will subdue technology. It's been proven numerous times in history, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of the Bulge, just to name a few. So far as I know, China can call upon a third of its population to serve in the armed forces, which would outnumber the entire population of the United States.tycoonmike

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Numbers will subdue technology. It's been proven numerous times in history, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of the Bulge, just to name a few. So far as I know, China can call upon a third of its population to serve in the armed forces, which would outnumber the entire population of the United States.BranKetra

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Numbers will subdue technology. It's been proven numerous times in history, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of the Bulge, just to name a few. So far as I know, China can call upon a third of its population to serve in the armed forces, which would outnumber the entire population of the United States.BranKetra

Numbers will subdue technology. It's been proven numerous times in history, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of the Bulge, just to name a few. So far as I know, China can call upon a third of its population to serve in the armed forces, which would outnumber the entire population of the United States.tycoonmike

"Numbers will subdue technology" Naive generalization.

Wrong on all 3 accounts.

Stalingrad - The German Army was encircled and cut off.

Moscow - The German Army's supply line ran out. That, and a serious attempt at attacking the city was never really made.

Buldge - How dare you even mention this one? The Germans failed to take Bastogne. And the USAAF was not challanged by the Luftwaffe. BTW, they outnumbered the 101st holding the city. Way to go against your own point.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Numbers will subdue technology. It's been proven numerous times in history, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of the Bulge, just to name a few. So far as I know, China can call upon a third of its population to serve in the armed forces, which would outnumber the entire population of the United States.CaptHawkeye

"Numbers will subdue technology" Naive generalization.

Wrong on all 3 accounts.

Stalingrad - The German Army was encircled and cut off.

Moscow - The German Army's supply line ran out. That, and a serious attempt at attacking the city was never really made.

Buldge - How dare you even mention this one? The Germans failed to take Bastogne. And the USAAF was not challanged by the Luftwaffe. BTW, they outnumbered the 101st holding the city. Way to go against your own point.

Numbers will subdue technology. .tycoonmike

Not in and of itself.....

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Numbers will subdue technology. It's been proven numerous times in history, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of the Bulge, just to name a few. So far as I know, China can call upon a third of its population to serve in the armed forces, which would outnumber the entire population of the United States.tycoonmike

Wrong. The Russians still keep a massive stockpile of nuclear arms to this day.

Conventionally the US military is unopposable on the open battlefield. It's superiority is gaurunteed. Have you even heard of the Abrams? The F-22 and F-35? Even if we rule out the one sided technology advantage, US training and organization is eons ahead of what the Chinese are capable of. In a straight slug out, the USAF and Navy would reign supreme, and that would be the end.

Of course this assuming the US and China would even go to war, which is unlikely considering the trade and economic benefits of working together.

sure chinas ground force are bigger but thats only because they have 1billion people
plus most of there hardware is still lagging behind it basically
a 300 lb fat man versus a 250 pound man whos is in shape and is all muscle

cliffs: us>china
MrJesusisnthere

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Numbers will subdue technology. It's been proven numerous times in history, the Battle of Stalingrad, the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of the Bulge, just to name a few. So far as I know, China can call upon a third of its population to serve in the armed forces, which would outnumber the entire population of the United States._Colossus_

"Numbers will subdue technology" Naive generalization.

Wrong on all 3 accounts.

Stalingrad - The German Army was encircled and cut off.

Moscow - The German Army's supply line ran out. That, and a serious attempt at attacking the city was never really made.

Buldge - How dare you even mention this one? The Germans failed to take Bastogne. And the USAAF was not challanged by the Luftwaffe. BTW, they outnumbered the 101st holding the city. Way to go against your own point.

Crappy organization and an uncertain political goal. MacArthur was fired, and the Army was caught in the open without a competant commander for miles. Of course it was either that or MacArrogant's Nuclear war. :roll:

"Numbers will subdue technology" Naive generalization.

Wrong on all 3 accounts.

Stalingrad - The German Army was encircled and cut off.

By a superior force of numbers. Not including captured and including civilian dead, 50,000 more Soviets lost their lives fighting off the Nazis. And so far as I know, 50,000 lives are a lot of people.

Moscow - The German Army's supply line ran out. That, and a serious attempt at attacking the city was never really made.

Germans had more mechanization, more planes, more guns even, and yet, they still lost to a superior force of 1.25 million Soviet troops. So far as I know 1 million is less than 1.25 million troops.

Buldge - How dare you even mention this one? The Germans failed to take Bastogne. And the USAAF was not challanged by the Luftwaffe. BTW, they outnumbered the 101st holding the city. Way to go against your own point.

Then explain to me how we lost 20 percent more troops in the largest estimates of the battle than did the Germans? Even if you take the "intelligence" of the US army seriously, the total allied deaths total to be about four thousand more than did the German "intelligence" proclaim to be dead.

CaptHawkeye

Wrong. The Russians still keep a massive stockpile of nuclear arms to this day.

Conventionally the US military is unopposable on the open battlefield. It's superiority is gaurunteed. Have you even heard of the Abrams? The F-22 and F-35? Even if we rule out the one sided technology advantage, US training and organization is eons ahead of what the Chinese are capable of. In a straight slug out, the USAF and Navy would reign supreme, and that would be the end.

Of course this assuming the US and China would even go to war, which is unlikely considering the trade and economic benefits of working together.

CaptHawkeye

Crappy organization and an uncertain political goal. MacArthur was fired, and the Army was caught in the open without a competant commander for miles. Of course it was either that or MacArrogant's Nuclear war. :roll:

CaptHawkeye

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

By a superior force of numbers.

No, by an idiot named Adolf Hitler who couldn't keep his army supplied and supported on its flanks.

Not including captured and including civilian dead, 50,000 more Soviets lost their lives fighting off the Nazis. And so far as I know, 50,000 lives are a lot of people.

What does that have to do with numerical supremacy?

Germans had more mechanization, more planes, more guns even, and yet, they still lost to a superior force of 1.25 million Soviet troops. So far as I know 1 million is less than 1.25 million troops.

I have to repeat myself? Christ, they didn't make a real effort to capture the city. Not to mention their non existent supply lines. Caused by the failure of the Wehrmacht to optimize for the Russian winter.

Then explain to me how we lost 20 percent more troops in the largest estimates of the battle than did the Germans? Even if you take the "intelligence" of the US army seriously, the total allied deaths total to be about four thousand more than did the German "intelligence" proclaim to be dead.

Which doesn't help your argument. It actually works against it. You know the Allies outnumbered the Germans right? And the Germans still managed to completely ass whip them until the weather lifted? They lost because the Luftwaffe was non existent, and Germany's supply lines and system were again strained beyond what they could handle.

tycoonmike

Chinese technology isn't lagging behind...actually they're catching up. The United States still has a superior Airforce though.Dasc00

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

By a superior force of numbers.

No, by an idiot named Adolf Hitler who couldn't keep his army supplied and supported on its flanks.

Not including captured and including civilian dead, 50,000 more Soviets lost their lives fighting off the Nazis. And so far as I know, 50,000 lives are a lot of people.

What does that have to do with numerical supremacy?

The use of more lives to accomplish a military goal. That is numerical supremacy.

Germans had more mechanization, more planes, more guns even, and yet, they still lost to a superior force of 1.25 million Soviet troops. So far as I know 1 million is less than 1.25 million troops.

I have to repeat myself? Christ, they didn't make a real effort to capture the city. Not to mention their non existent supply lines. Caused by the failure of the Wehrmacht to optimize for the Russian winter.

So? According to you, despite these flaws with German strategy, they should have won. Because they had the superiority in tech and in materiel, the Germans should have been able to overrun the Soviets.

Then explain to me how we lost 20 percent more troops in the largest estimates of the battle than did the Germans? Even if you take the "intelligence" of the US army seriously, the total allied deaths total to be about four thousand more than did the German "intelligence" proclaim to be dead.

Which doesn't help your argument. It actually works against it. You know the Allies outnumbered the Germans right? And the Germans still managed to completely ass whip them until the weather lifted? They lost because the Luftwaffe was non existent, and Germany's supply lines and system were again strained beyond what they could handle.

Once again, despite that, the Germans should have won, according to you, and I am merely taking your word literally, because of their technological superiority. They should have been able to overrun the Allies at the Ardennes because of their beginning materiel superiority. And, explain to me how the Allies could have lost more troops than they started out with if they did not have numerical supremacy at the end?

CaptHawkeye

[QUOTE="Dasc00"]Chinese technology isn't lagging behind...actually they're catching up. The United States still has a superior Airforce though.AARONRULZ1

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

Wrong. The Russians still keep a massive stockpile of nuclear arms to this day.

Conventionally the US military is unopposable on the open battlefield. It's superiority is gaurunteed. Have you even heard of the Abrams? The F-22 and F-35? Even if we rule out the one sided technology advantage, US training and organization is eons ahead of what the Chinese are capable of. In a straight slug out, the USAF and Navy would reign supreme, and that would be the end.

Of course this assuming the US and China would even go to war, which is unlikely considering the trade and economic benefits of working together.

tycoonmike

Geopolitics show signs during and before change, when people fail to recognize them is when things change.

And so far as I know, the World has far greater materiel and personel to use.

And you're assuming the same world which can't even agree on simple localized legislations would somehow unite against a single country for any reason? When was the last time the entire world worked unanimously for something?

I have heard of the Abrams. I also know that no weapon is unstoppable. The Abrams has its weaknesses, like simple land mines.

And you think the Chinese Army would be able to stop the Abrams by spamming mine fields? When has that worked in history? Ever?

Trade be damned. Trade has started more wars in history than it has prevented it. Ever hear of the Crusades? Yes, all the schools want us to think that they were started to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslim "infidels." They just seem to glance over how rich trade in the area was. Considering how secular the Church became during this time period, I find it surprising that the textbooks forget that.

You realize your comparing two completely different political and technological ages right?

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]Crappy organization and an uncertain political goal. MacArthur was fired, and the Army was caught in the open without a competant commander for miles. Of course it was either that or MacArrogant's Nuclear war. :roll:

_Colossus_

Of course, but what is making me angry is that people think that any battle or war can be won simply by ramming men into the meat grinder. War is a lot more complex then "let's see how many men I can rush into that position before they just run out of ammo".

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

Wrong. The Russians still keep a massive stockpile of nuclear arms to this day.

Conventionally the US military is unopposable on the open battlefield. It's superiority is gaurunteed. Have you even heard of the Abrams? The F-22 and F-35? Even if we rule out the one sided technology advantage, US training and organization is eons ahead of what the Chinese are capable of. In a straight slug out, the USAF and Navy would reign supreme, and that would be the end.

Of course this assuming the US and China would even go to war, which is unlikely considering the trade and economic benefits of working together.

CaptHawkeye

Geopolitics show signs during and before change, when people fail to recognize them is when things change.

And so far as I know, the World has far greater materiel and personel to use.

And you're assuming the same world which can't even agree on simple localized legislations would somehow unite against a single country for any reason? When was the last time the entire world worked unanimously for something?

I don't see why not, considering that's what the world did against the Axis powers. I grant you, there was more than one country, but even then, you're talking about, effectively three nations against the majority of the rest of the world.
I have heard of the Abrams. I also know that no weapon is unstoppable. The Abrams has its weaknesses, like simple land mines.

And you think the Chinese Army would be able to stop the Abrams by spamming mine fields? When has that worked in history? Ever?

I'm not saying it would. I'm merely talking in a perfect scenario.
Trade be damned. Trade has started more wars in history than it has prevented it. Ever hear of the Crusades? Yes, all the schools want us to think that they were started to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslim "infidels." They just seem to glance over how rich trade in the area was. Considering how secular the Church became during this time period, I find it surprising that the textbooks forget that.

You realize your comparing two completely different political and technological ages right?

Yes, I do, but I don't see how the essence of trade changes between the two. Trade is trade, the commercial aspect of buying and selling goods based off of the needs and desires of the populace. That hasn't changed since the beginning of recorded history, though the methods of trade (barter system to monetary system) have.

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

The use of more lives to accomplish a military goal. That is numerical supremacy.

You will have to clear this up better, you're naming casualty numbers, that's all.

So? According to you, despite these flaws with German strategy, they should have won. Because they had the superiority in tech and in materiel, the Germans should have been able to overrun the Soviets.

You aren't listening, the German's advantage of technology was taken away from them as a result of the winter. They had no problems turning the Russians around during the spring and summer of 1941 and 1942.  

Then explain to me how we lost 20 percent more troops in the largest estimates of the battle than did the Germans? Even if you take the "intelligence" of the US army seriously, the total allied deaths total to be about four thousand more than did the German "intelligence" proclaim to be dead.

Which doesn't help your argument. It actually works against it. You know the Allies outnumbered the Germans right? And the Germans still managed to completely ass whip them until the weather lifted? They lost because the Luftwaffe was non existent, and Germany's supply lines and system were again strained beyond what they could handle.

Once again, despite that, the Germans should have won, according to you, and I am merely taking your word literally, because of their technological superiority. They should have been able to overrun the Allies at the Ardennes because of their beginning materiel superiority. And, explain to me how the Allies could have lost more troops than they started out with if they did not have numerical supremacy at the end?

And again, you missed the point that while the Germans still had the Panzers, the Luftwaffe was non existant during the time. The technology advantage was signifigantly weakened. That, and the US Army was closing the technology gap quickly, you do know USAAF equipment was often superior to Luftwaffe equipment, right?

tycoonmike

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

Wrong. The Russians still keep a massive stockpile of nuclear arms to this day.

Conventionally the US military is unopposable on the open battlefield. It's superiority is gaurunteed. Have you even heard of the Abrams? The F-22 and F-35? Even if we rule out the one sided technology advantage, US training and organization is eons ahead of what the Chinese are capable of. In a straight slug out, the USAF and Navy would reign supreme, and that would be the end.

Of course this assuming the US and China would even go to war, which is unlikely considering the trade and economic benefits of working together.

tycoonmike

I don't see why not, considering that's what the world did against the Axis powers. I grant you, there was more than one country, but even then, you're talking about, effectively three nations against the majority of the rest of the world.

The Axis powers made up more then just Germany, Italy and Japan. The Allied powers could never be considered the entire world. It was barely a majority either. And besides, how many of these countries actually contributed to the war? A lot of countries during WW2 just said "hey we can be allies to" and did nothing. Mainly because they wanted to be on the winning side. This is hardly "uniting".

I'm not saying it would. I'm merely talking in a perfect scenario.

Which is absurd to hope for in war.

Yes, I do, but I don't see how the essence of trade changes between the two. Trade is trade, the commercial aspect of buying and selling goods based off of the needs and desires of the populace. That hasn't changed since the beginning of recorded history, though the methods of trade (barter system to monetary system) have.

Yes, and based on current US and Chinese economic standards, their is no reason for war at all. The Chinese want computer and information technology which the US supplies en masse. The US wants cheap labor in numbers, which the Chinese supply en masse.