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

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for tycoonmike
tycoonmike

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#51 tycoonmike
Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][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.

I am naming they who died in the defense of their country, be they trained or otherwise. That, in my opinion, is numerical supremacy.


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.

Exactly. Why weren't they able to followthrough and defeat them before the winter if not because of the sheer force of numbers the Russians had?

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?

Notice how I didn't use the phrase "technological superiority." I used it in the beginning, because I was referring to the beginnings of the war. The Germans should have been able to overrun the Allies because of their inherent tech. advantages in the start, according to you. In the second part of my sentence, I recognize my fault and retract it. Materiel is the same as personel, only mechanized, like in tanks, planes, or guns.

CaptHawkeye

Avatar image for Thunderjack
Thunderjack

588

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#52 Thunderjack
Member since 2003 • 588 Posts
America is technologically superior, but what good his power if you don't have the stones to use it?
Avatar image for CaptHawkeye
CaptHawkeye

13977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#53 CaptHawkeye
Member since 2004 • 13977 Posts

I am naming they who died in the defense of their country, be they trained or otherwise. That, in my opinion, is numerical supremacy.

Casualty numbers are hardly something to brag about, ever.

Exactly. Why weren't they able to followthrough and defeat them before the winter if not because of the sheer force of numbers the Russians had?

Because the Russians avoided the Germany Army most of the non winter months. They knew they couldn't stand and fight them in a typical slug out without the winter on their side.


Notice how I didn't use the phrase "technological superiority." I used it in the beginning, because I was referring to the beginnings of the war. The Germans should have been able to overrun the Allies because of their inherent tech. advantages in the start, according to you. In the second part of my sentence, I recognize my fault and retract it. Materiel is the same as personel, only mechanized, like in tanks, planes, or guns.

Even the best technology can hardly make up for a weak supply line and backwards command system. Which the Germans suffered from. And the Allies had.

Avatar image for _Colossus_
_Colossus_

1704

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 _Colossus_
Member since 2004 • 1704 Posts
[QUOTE="_Colossus_"][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:

CaptHawkeye

Reasons for loosing has several sides, of course. But that doesn't make it false that armies has been overran in war before, as the Chinese and N. Korean army did combined in the Korean War. Sheer amount of soldiers will most of the times drain the moral to the enemy and so they retreat or does it poorly in battle.

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".

 
Yes, I get your point there. A mix of technology and manpower is always the best option. But there is a chance that P.R.China might have won a war against U.S. since P.R.China has a "ok" supply of tech., weaponry and a superior amount of people which can be put in to action. U.S however has a considerably good amount of tech. they can use and weaponry, but they don't have the manpower to beat P.R.China in a conventional war. If you don't have manpower you can't use all the tanks, planes, ships etc.

I'm a bit off the point here, but it's late. So good night. Happy discussion :)
Avatar image for tycoonmike
tycoonmike

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#55 tycoonmike
Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts

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".

Here's a map of what areas of the world were involved. While I will agree that many of the countries involved were allies in name only, the fact remains that they were allies of the warring nations, and as such makes them co-beligerents. I will also agree that Wikipedia isn't exactly the best source to be using.

Which is absurd to hope for in war.

But this isn't a war. This is a debate between to anonymous members of an internet forum site, neither of which probably has much knowledge of wartime strategy, correct me if I'm wrong. And all strategies are formed in the perfect scenario, it is almost literally impossible to assume what move an enemy will make off the battlefield, not to mention the natural events that can skew a perfect strategy, if ever there was one.

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.

Based on today's standard. Tomorrow's may change. Perhaps the American corporations will get their collective head out of their collective ass and realize that in outsourcing they are harming America. Perhaps a radical Democratic group in China will successfully pull of a military coup and institute democracy in China. Either way it's possible. Incredibly improbable, but still possible.
CaptHawkeye

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
Actually.....when talking strategy you should go over every possible outcome that could occur from your enemy and be prepared to handle it Tycoon.
Avatar image for tycoonmike
tycoonmike

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#57 tycoonmike
Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts

Casualty numbers are hardly something to brag about, ever.

I'm not saying they are, I'm merely stating how we (the Allies) lost more lives to achieve the mission objectives of World War Two than did they (the Axis powers), despite their beginning technological advantage.

Because the Russians avoided the Germany Army most of the non winter months. They knew they couldn't stand and fight them in a typical slug out without the winter on their side.

So? The Germans should have been able to rout them, according to your belief that technology is more important than manpower, despite the Russian's wise decision to wait until winter to make their main assaults.

Even the best technology can hardly make up for a weak supply line and backwards command system. Which the Germans suffered from. And the Allies had.

You're confusing me, here. Are you saying the Allies had a weak supply line and backwards command system?

CaptHawkeye
Avatar image for KrayzieJ
KrayzieJ

3283

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 KrayzieJ
Member since 2003 • 3283 Posts
China has a large army, in fact, it has a MASSIVE army, the debilitating factor in that is that their are too many mouths to feed. I don't think China could afford to feed its army and its people at the same time if a major conflict between them and America broke out. Peasants revolts and things of that nature would ensue.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#59 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
China has more soldiers, but they are still far behind in the technology department.  Plus, they don't have Chuck Norris.
Avatar image for UrbanSpartan125
UrbanSpartan125

3684

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#60 UrbanSpartan125
Member since 2006 • 3684 Posts
of course we are better than china, no one should doubt that we hvae superior technology and training in every sense
Avatar image for tycoonmike
tycoonmike

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#61 tycoonmike
Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts
Actually.....when talking strategy you should go over every possible outcome that could occur from your enemy and be prepared to handle it Tycoon.LJS9502_basic

So then I, as a commander, should be prepared if, God forbid, an earthquake should hit, destroying half my force? If you entangle yourself with the details, you are unprepared. The beginner sees many possibilities, the expert sees few. If I were dropped into a warzone equipped with all sorts of gear, having to fight a lone trooper armed with, say, an axe, I can guarantee you that I would die because I was wrapped up with the details of reading reports about the area.

Now I'm not saying we should totally disregard things like that, but you can't plan for everything, and it is foolish, nay, idiotic to think you can.
Avatar image for CaptHawkeye
CaptHawkeye

13977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#62 CaptHawkeye
Member since 2004 • 13977 Posts

Here's a map of what areas of the world were involved. While I will agree that many of the countries involved were allies in name only, the fact remains that they were allies of the warring nations, and as such makes them co-beligerents. I will also agree that Wikipedia isn't exactly the best source to be using.

I'll concede the point partially. However, the allies joined together mainly because no axis nation provided them with anything, other then threats and racial xenophobia. In any case, the status of contemporary world trade and military alliances and rivalries rules out such an event against the United States. The US still has a long way to go before it is comparable a threat to the world as the axis were.

It was a special situation, and one that is likely to be as rare as a blue moon occuring at the exact same time hell freezes over.


But this isn't a war. This is a debate between to anonymous members of an internet forum site, neither of which probably has much knowledge of wartime strategy, correct me if I'm wrong. And all strategies are formed in the perfect scenario, it is almost literally impossible to assume what move an enemy will make off the battlefield, not to mention the natural events that can skew a perfect strategy, if ever there was one.
How is it impossible? Sun Tzu himself stated that knowing an enemy is the key to victory. I sincerely doubt he would say that if it was completely impossible to know one's enemy. No one "assumes" what moves their enemy will make unless they are desperate. Most battlefield scenarios are designed to take into account the personal goals and personalities of known enemy commanders.

Based on today's standard. Tomorrow's may change. Perhaps the American corporations will get their collective head out of their collective ass and realize that in outsourcing they are harming America. Perhaps a radical Democratic group in China will successfully pull of a military coup and institute democracy in China. Either way it's possible. Incredibly improbable, but still possible.

As does this one. Once the argument succumbs to speculation and dreaming it is essentially over.

That and i'm tired.

Avatar image for ArmoredAshes
ArmoredAshes

4025

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#63 ArmoredAshes
Member since 2005 • 4025 Posts
First of all, I think this is totally uncalled for and completely random. Secondly, you don't need to be in shape to kill another human being.SaugaGames


yeah.....all you need is motivation
Avatar image for MrJesusisnthere
MrJesusisnthere

239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 MrJesusisnthere
Member since 2006 • 239 Posts
China's army just has more soldiers in it, but USA is stronger of an army.Flaming_Ape
exactly thats my analogy us army is stronger but chinas army is fatter
Avatar image for tycoonmike
tycoonmike

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#65 tycoonmike
Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts

How is it impossible? Sun Tzu himself stated that knowing an enemy is the key to victory. I sincerely doubt he would say that if it was completely impossible to know one's enemy. No one "assumes" what moves their enemy will make unless they are desperate. Most battlefield scenarios are designed to take into account the personal goals and personalities of known enemy commanders.

And that would be your weakness. You assume that people will follow their hearts and not their minds. And while I agree it's human nature to act on impulse, you assume we won't think things out. I know I was advocating, basically, the fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants method of command, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't think things through before acting.

CaptHawkeye

Avatar image for tycoonmike
tycoonmike

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#66 tycoonmike
Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts

Based on today's standard. Tomorrow's may change. Perhaps the American corporations will get their collective head out of their collective ass and realize that in outsourcing they are harming America. Perhaps a radical Democratic group in China will successfully pull of a military coup and institute democracy in China. Either way it's possible. Incredibly improbable, but still possible.

As does this one. Once the argument succumbs to speculation and dreaming it is essentially over.

That and i'm tired.

CaptHawkeye

I'm sorry, but it's completely idiotic to assume things can't and won't change overnight.

And, on an aside, mind if I track you?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually.....when talking strategy you should go over every possible outcome that could occur from your enemy and be prepared to handle it Tycoon.tycoonmike

So then I, as a commander, should be prepared if, God forbid, an earthquake should hit, destroying half my force? If you entangle yourself with the details, you are unprepared. The beginner sees many possibilities, the expert sees few. If I were dropped into a warzone equipped with all sorts of gear, having to fight a lone trooper armed with, say, an axe, I can guarantee you that I would die because I was wrapped up with the details of reading reports about the area.

Now I'm not saying we should totally disregard things like that, but you can't plan for everything, and it is foolish, nay, idiotic to think you can.

I suppose if you were fighting nature you'd have to consider it.:|  At what point does strategizing over the possible outcomes your enemy may take does earthquakes become involved? 

Avatar image for Aznsilvrboy
Aznsilvrboy

11495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 Aznsilvrboy
Member since 2002 • 11495 Posts
of course we are better than china, no one should doubt that we hvae superior technology and training in every senseUrbanSpartan125


I doubt you have any idea how rigorous the training is for PLA soldiers.
Avatar image for Thunderjack
Thunderjack

588

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#69 Thunderjack
Member since 2003 • 588 Posts
The state of the USA's government prevents us from being able to conquer nations such as China.
Avatar image for rrric
rrric

2408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 rrric
Member since 2003 • 2408 Posts
YOu forget that china navy sucks. us navy: 9 aircraft carriers china: 0 they would get raped
Avatar image for Thunderjack
Thunderjack

588

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#71 Thunderjack
Member since 2003 • 588 Posts
[QUOTE="rrric"]YOu forget that china navy sucks. us navy: 9 aircraft carriers china: 0 they would get raped

And you forget that America has been castrated by the weak.
Avatar image for KrayzieJ
KrayzieJ

3283

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 KrayzieJ
Member since 2003 • 3283 Posts
If I had to bet on the two I would probably go with China. Im a proud American, but Chinese nationalism is absolutely astounding. People in China ( at least in the documentaries I've seen) do nearly everything for their country. If they want to accomplish something, its not for their own ambition, its for China. America is practically the polar opposite of that. All two billion Chinese would be for the war, while probably 1/5 of the Americans would support it.
Avatar image for TheWalrusBeast
TheWalrusBeast

1820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#73 TheWalrusBeast
Member since 2005 • 1820 Posts
This thread is stupid, armies don't fight on paper. Who would have thought the Soviets would get their butts beat so bad in Afghanistan? Who would have thought Vietnam expelled America? These military comparisons are just lame.

Theoreitcally, China probably can beat the USA on Chinese soil or anywhere close to China but America wins anywhere else. 
Avatar image for aliens1234
aliens1234

2932

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#74 aliens1234
Member since 2004 • 2932 Posts
When did anyone say their army was better? One thing is for sure. China is one of the world's fastest growing economies and carrying on in its current trend will overtake the USA. When that happens their military will improve and will also surpass that of the USA.

That is assuming the growth of the Chinese economy continues like it has been.
Avatar image for tycoonmike
tycoonmike

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#75 tycoonmike
Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Actually.....when talking strategy you should go over every possible outcome that could occur from your enemy and be prepared to handle it Tycoon.LJS9502_basic


So then I, as a commander, should be prepared if, God forbid, an earthquake should hit, destroying half my force? If you entangle yourself with the details, you are unprepared. The beginner sees many possibilities, the expert sees few. If I were dropped into a warzone equipped with all sorts of gear, having to fight a lone trooper armed with, say, an axe, I can guarantee you that I would die because I was wrapped up with the details of reading reports about the area.

Now I'm not saying we should totally disregard things like that, but you can't plan for everything, and it is foolish, nay, idiotic to think you can.

I suppose if you were fighting nature you'd have to consider it.:| At what point does strategizing over the possible outcomes your enemy may take does earthquakes become involved?


Say you're stationed in the mountains somewhere and a small earthquake triggers an avalanche. The cascading snow wipes out half of your force, thus you only have half as many troops to fight against an enemy who was relatively unaffected by the avalanche. A perfectly possible situation, albeit incredibly unlikely, which, according to you, I should prepare for. It would seriously hinder your offensive capability if you only had half as many troops as you had to start with.
Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38949

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#76 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38949 Posts
who are you directing this at?
Avatar image for Wasdie
Wasdie

53622

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#77 Wasdie  Moderator
Member since 2003 • 53622 Posts
Who said that? China's military is decades behind the US's.
Avatar image for firestorm304
firestorm304

1271

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#78 firestorm304
Member since 2005 • 1271 Posts
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
1. wheres your source? and 2. what the f*** does it matter?!
Avatar image for Brainkiller05
Brainkiller05

28954

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 Brainkiller05
Member since 2005 • 28954 Posts
Chinese food rocks.SempiternalFett

Word.
Avatar image for kitty
kitty

115479

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#80 kitty  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 115479 Posts
usa's army is better than chinas
Avatar image for stevo1000
stevo1000

1677

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 0

#81 stevo1000
Member since 2006 • 1677 Posts
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
Your one of those Americans are you? 2 words for you, grow up. Just because your armys better doesn't mean you run the World or think your the best.
Avatar image for -PureDemon-
-PureDemon-

18426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 28

User Lists: 0

#82 -PureDemon-
Member since 2003 • 18426 Posts
Chinese people will never rule the World. Europeans 4ever!slackersunited
No no you got it all wrong.. I'll rule the world.
Avatar image for FlameMe
FlameMe

1165

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#83 FlameMe
Member since 2006 • 1165 Posts
China has a much bigger ground force then the US, but they lack the ability to move that force to another continent if needed for a war.
Avatar image for daniel52587
daniel52587

3028

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#84 daniel52587
Member since 2005 • 3028 Posts
No ****. 
Avatar image for Vampyronight
Vampyronight

3933

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#85 Vampyronight
Member since 2002 • 3933 Posts
Ok, I took the time to read most people's opinions. First, I should state a couple of things about myself. First, I am an American. But also, I live in China. My major when I was in college was called Far East Studies, which is the history, economics, politics, and geography of Asia. And since my school didn't have much with other countries, most of my education was specifically about China. Throughout this post, I'll try to clear up some misconceptions about China and its people. To be blunt, the main point of the thread (no matter how random it came to be) is absolutely spot on. Short of massive incompetence (and when I say that, I mean more than you can probably imagine...if you Bush is incompetent as a leader, think of him as a rousing success then imagine incompetence based off that) on the part of the US military, the People's Liberation Army (PLA from hereafter) stands absolutely no chance at winning any realistically based war (as in, one based off real, current political situations that could result in war). This is a fact- disagreement, no matter what argument you make, is one ultimately devoid of reality. Without turning this into one of the longest posts ever seen on a forum, I'll try to focus on a few key select things that makes this true. The first is the situation in regards to a navy. Almost never has a country won a war without a superior navy- the only example I can think of is Athens vs Sparta, and that was due to massive incompetence. And the fact of the matter is that the US has a true blue water navy (one that can go anywhere, at any time) and China still has plenty of of ships from the 60s and 70s (and a few from the 40s and 50s, hah!). The Chinese want to build aircraft carriers, but the fact is that they don't have any hulls in the water at this point, let alone functioning ones. The key to a war with China would be for the US to secure the Malacca Straits. For those of you don't know, this is a tiny waterway between Singapore and Indonesia. The vast majority of the Chinese oil supplies come through this way- if the US were to secure this strait (which it could, easily), it would cripple any military capability from China. China also can barely feed its own people, let alone handle a time of war (and it would take total war to fight the US). Up until about 2 years ago, China was still receiving food aid because it couldn't feed its own people. Fighting a war takes a serious commitment of resources, especially money, which leads to my second point. China's not developing like it says it is. This is the point where I'm afraid I could go on and on with, so I'll try to keep it brief. China's lying through its teeth when it comes to reporting its growth. Two quick and easy examples to prove that they're lying. The first is its yearly GDP growth, which they love to claim comes in at 8 or 9 percent. It's funny, though, because those GDP numbers come out BEFORE the year is even finished. Surely, with a country as big and as populated in China, it would take some time to calculate these numbers. But hey, maybe Chinese economists have a crystal ball and the numbers are spot on. I'll let you be the judge. The second example is their provincial growth rates versus the national growth rates. I forget which year (can find it if you're oh-so-inclined) but basically if you look at the provincial growth numbers, all but one of the provinces (Anhui) had higher numbers than the national government's numbers. Amazing, isn't it? Somebody's lying, or more likely, both. Just one more quick example to really illustrate what it's like here. There are these people in cities that have these massive brooms (don't know how to describe them any better than that) just just sweep trash, dirt, and other junk off the streets and sidewalks. In a city in Guangdong province, there were 7 open positions. They had 280+ people apply that college degrees or higher! They ended up taking 4 with bachelor's degrees, 2 with masters degrees, and one with a PhD. This is a bottom of the barrel job- surely a person with a PhD could get a better job in an economy growing so fast. I can provide plenty of more examples. By the way, if you want a real adventure, go to Guangdong. It's sort of like the Wild West- there's virtually no laws. Just be careful. Some remaining tidbits left. -Chinese people are fairly nationalistic, but there's also a sizable majority that is quite disenchanted with the current situation here in China. Corruption is seen as the worst thing happening, and thus the people have little faith in the government. If a war were to break out, I don't think you'd see the 'rally around the flag' type thing happen as much in China. Furthermore, most people would not serve in the military if they could- most see it as job security. - Americans are very well liked by the Chinese. If a war were to break out, it would undermine support. Now if it was Japan, well, total war it is! -The PLA is NOT well trained. Whoever said that knows nothing. -Chinese people as a whole cannot seem to dance well. I don't know why.
Avatar image for kyleali11
kyleali11

11820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86 kyleali11
Member since 2006 • 11820 Posts
we said bigger, not stronger
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#87 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
They do have a bigger ground force. Your "reasons" do not change that fact...
Avatar image for lohithbms
lohithbms

5081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#88 lohithbms
Member since 2005 • 5081 Posts
According to the CIA and other Intelligence Services (European, Asian, African) this is the tally - based on a Combination of Manpower, Technology, Firepower, Training, Resources, Available Reserves, and Nuclear Potential (Current or Likely): 1. USA 2. China 3. Germany 4. India 5. France 6. Russia 7. UK 8. Italy 9. Israel 10. Pakistan http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-14422.aspx Ok i rest my case
Avatar image for CaptHawkeye
CaptHawkeye

13977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#89 CaptHawkeye
Member since 2004 • 13977 Posts

They do have a bigger ground force. Your "reasons" do not change that fact...Bourbons3

The question is whether or not the Chinese can rely on that "fact" to bring them victory. Which has been shown they can't.

Avatar image for tycoonmike
tycoonmike

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#90 tycoonmike
Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]They do have a bigger ground force. Your "reasons" do not change that fact...CaptHawkeye

The question is whether or not the Chinese can rely on that "fact" to bring them victory. Which has been shown they can't.


When? So far as I know, the People's Liberation Army has had as many as 350 million souls to call upon for military service only for the past ten years, and barring border skirmishes, China hasn't been involved in any significant war since the Korean War, to my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong. They have the potential, yes, but their troops, I will grant you, are relatively untested, barring internal problems. If seriously provoked in a situation like that of the War of 1812, and I only speak hypothetically, I am certain the Chinese would fight to the man to defend the People's Republic.
Avatar image for mastersword007
mastersword007

6630

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#91 mastersword007
Member since 2005 • 6630 Posts
[QUOTE="slackersunited"][QUOTE="Dasc00"][QUOTE="slackersunited"]Chinese people will never rule the World. Europeans 4ever!Dasc00
I'm actually convinced you are a racist from this post and the topic you made. good job.

Being proud + european= racist? yea, and I'm the racist.

Eureopeans 4ever...kind of sounded like you think you're superior.



Or just proud....calm down man.....
Avatar image for zero9167
zero9167

14554

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#92 zero9167
Member since 2005 • 14554 Posts
Chinese food rocks.SempiternalFett
it sure does
Avatar image for zero9167
zero9167

14554

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#93 zero9167
Member since 2005 • 14554 Posts
Why do we have to have conflict with China?DaveGamer_05
To see who is stronger of course
Avatar image for Fkid
Fkid

1028

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 Fkid
Member since 2003 • 1028 Posts
To all you noobs, china and u.s will never go to war....in this decade or the next. It is virtually impossible considering the trade and economic factors between the two (and in this day of age, that matters a lot). The States need China as does China needs the U.S. THe only chances of war occuring is probably the disagrement between Taiwan, and at most it will be just a minor political argument . I dont think both countries will go to war specifically for that one. But in the next 30 years, once China is fully developed, then it is sure there will be global changes that will seriously impact political and economic relations between the two countries. If I have to predict, once China is on the same level as the U.S, both will compete for influence in the world. And I seriously think that is the most integral part of world power. Influence is what brought the U.S to where it is in the past 40 years and what brought Russia down. If U.S does not fix its foreign reputation globaly, China would most likely fill that void (if done correctly) and once that happen, tensions would surely arise AND THAT IS NOT GOOD.
Avatar image for AeroTow
AeroTow

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#95 AeroTow
Member since 2006 • 178 Posts
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


Congratulations! your IQ is -5
Avatar image for CaptHawkeye
CaptHawkeye

13977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#96 CaptHawkeye
Member since 2004 • 13977 Posts
[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]They do have a bigger ground force. Your "reasons" do not change that fact...tycoonmike

The question is whether or not the Chinese can rely on that "fact" to bring them victory. Which has been shown they can't.


When? So far as I know, the People's Liberation Army has had as many as 350 million souls to call upon for military service only for the past ten years, and barring border skirmishes, China hasn't been involved in any significant war since the Korean War, to my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong. They have the potential, yes, but their troops, I will grant you, are relatively untested, barring internal problems. If seriously provoked in a situation like that of the War of 1812, and I only speak hypothetically, I am certain the Chinese would fight to the man to defend the People's Republic.

Weren't you just saying how something like that could not predicted? By your previous logic, their is no reason to assume they would fight back.

Avatar image for sentencedogu
sentencedogu

3823

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#97 sentencedogu
Member since 2006 • 3823 Posts
lol of course USA is better but thats not because they're heavier :lol:
Avatar image for sentencedogu
sentencedogu

3823

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#98 sentencedogu
Member since 2006 • 3823 Posts
[QUOTE="lohithbms"]According to the CIA and other Intelligence Services (European, Asian, African) this is the tally - based on a Combination of Manpower, Technology, Firepower, Training, Resources, Available Reserves, and Nuclear Potential (Current or Likely): 1. USA 2. China 3. Germany 4. India 5. France 6. Russia 7. UK 8. Italy 9. Israel 10. Pakistan http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-14422.aspx Ok i rest my case


HEY thatss just one guys idea
The real list is different
Avatar image for tycoonmike
tycoonmike

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#99 tycoonmike
Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts
[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"]They do have a bigger ground force. Your "reasons" do not change that fact...CaptHawkeye

The question is whether or not the Chinese can rely on that "fact" to bring them victory. Which has been shown they can't.


When? So far as I know, the People's Liberation Army has had as many as 350 million souls to call upon for military service only for the past ten years, and barring border skirmishes, China hasn't been involved in any significant war since the Korean War, to my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong. They have the potential, yes, but their troops, I will grant you, are relatively untested, barring internal problems. If seriously provoked in a situation like that of the War of 1812, and I only speak hypothetically, I am certain the Chinese would fight to the man to defend the People's Republic.

Weren't you just saying how something like that could not predicted? By your previous logic, their is no reason to assume they would fight back.


Then by your logic, you wouldn't fight back if your country was being invaded? I sure as hell know I would if America were being invaded. If it was your house being bombed, I am damn certain that you would want to scalp and mutiliate the conniving son of a b**** who did that to you. I am absolutely certain that this would be the case, just as the Russians did during WW2, they fought back, losing millions of lives, to purge the Germans from their doorstep. It is human nature, the nature that you and I share, that dictates this.

We can only predict things off of our experiences in the world. I watched as my parents fought with the school I go to now to keep me in it and out of the Godawful school whose district I technically lived in, and I am certain they would fight and lose it all just so I could get a proper education, just as I am certain that the Chinese, nay, any people, would fight and lose it all just so the next generation didn't have to fight their war. So long as a war has the support of the people, the people will fight it. If America was being invaded by Iran or North Korea, then we would be in unison shouting "Death to the Invader!" Instead, we are disunited against Al-Qaeda. When it is your own land being threatened, people will do extraordinary things to ensure that their lives, or the lives of the next generation, are protected.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "People's Republic." I meant the Chinese homeland. Not the government itself. Oops :oops:
Avatar image for sentencedogu
sentencedogu

3823

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#100 sentencedogu
Member since 2006 • 3823 Posts
here you go
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp

Europeans
1)Russia
2)UK
3)Turkey
4)Germany
5)France

whole world
1)USA
2)China