Chinese Military is no match for US Army!

[Dr. Strangehug]

This is some more recent information for ya'll fellas who think China is hot sh**.......

China Seen Decades Behind U.S. in Military Might

By Carol Giacomo

Reuters, May 22, 2003

China is at least two decades behind the United States in modernizing its military and is unlikely to seriously challenge America globally or in Asia for an even longer period, experts said on Thursday.

In a new report, the Council on Foreign Relations cautioned against overreacting to Beijing's defense buildup and said that for the foreseeable future, the communist giant likely will be constrained by domestic demands like political succession, public health issues and rising unemployment.

Some U.S. officials and analysts, particularly conservative thinkers, have sounded alarms over the rapid growth of China's military budget over the past 13 years and warned that Beijing might soon challenge U.S. dominance in Asia.

Some envision China as Washington's replacement adversary for the defunct Soviet Union.

But leaders of the task force that produced the report took a nonpartisan and pragmatic approach to assessing trends in Chinese military modernization "so as to avoid the wide and unfounded swings that characterized similar judgments about the Soviets during the Cold War," said council president Les Gelb.

Led by former Defense Secretary Harold Brown and retired Adm. Joseph Prueher, former U.S. Pacific commander and U.S. ambassador to China, the task force acknowledged that China is "pursuing a deliberate and focused course of military modernization" and its actual defense spending may be two or three times higher than official figures.

TAIWAN NEAR-TERM CONCERN

Nevertheless China is "at least two decades behind the United States in terms of military technology and capability," it said.

"If the United States continues to dedicate significant resources to improving its military forces, as expected, the balance between the United States and China, both globally and in Asia, is likely to remain decisively in America's favor beyond the next 20 years," it added.

The report warned Americans against an "underreaction," which might allow Beijing to someday catch the United States and its allies off guard with its military buildup.

It noted that the one area of near-term concern involves Taiwan, the island controlled by Chinese nationalists that Beijing considers a renegade province.

The Peoples Liberation Army is acquiring military capabilities to defend Chinese sovereignty and territorial interests and to "pose a credible threat to Taiwan in order to influence Taiwan's choices about its political future," the task force said.

In the next two decades, Beijing will acquire even more capability to hold and seize territories, the report said.

American forces, which are pledged to defend Taiwan, would ultimately prevail in any military conflict over the island, but Beijing still "might be able to impose serious risks and costs on the U.S. military," the report said.

Source

[Dr. Strangehug]

Also....I would like to quote Wikipedia in regards to the U.S. military and her global ability to "put the hurt on anyone, anywhere" comment I made earlier....

The United States military is unique in the amount of power it can project globally. Although France and the United Kingdom are capable of projecting limited amounts of power overseas, the United States military is the only military capable of fighting a major regional war at a distance from its homeland.

Source

This is important to our discussion because how is China supposed to fight a war against the U.S. over Taiwan(or any other bit of dirt in the world) if they can't even get a force large enough to do the job there?

[Dr. Strangehug]

Oh...and lets not forget this little tidbit of information...

The United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than China's, which places second. The United States and its close allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for two-thirds), dollar for dollar. Military spending accounts for more than half of the United States' federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. government's money not spoken for by pre-existing obligations. [3]

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$956,000,000,000.

Also....here are the troop numbers for the U.S. and China..........It says that the U.S. has

1,427,000 troops......which puts America in 2nd place as far as largest army in the world....and China's troop strength is 2,250,000.....put it obviously in 1st place.......but the ratio of active duty troops when compared to America is only 1.6 soldiers to every American soldier.......those aren't good numbers for China.

World Military Strengths

Source

Edited July 11, 2005 by Dr. Strangehug

[Dr. Strangehug]

Now THAT is all hard numbers....no guess work.....From everything that I have read and been told in regards to an America-Chinese conflict(I'm currently majoring in Political Science....specializing in International Relations...)....anyways.....taking into account all that I've come across.....if a war was fought today...in lets say Taiwan, America would smoke China's ass.

[TheOneAceRimmer]

[attachmentid=16406]In my opinion the United States of America could take on any country and still emerge with strong military might. No matter how big the guns, or how many men the enemy have. The United States will surely be victorious.

[british_patriot]

[attachmentid=16406]In my opinion the United States of America could take on any country and still emerge with strong military might.  No matter how big the guns, or how many men the enemy have.  The United States will surely be victorious.

726602[/snapback]

That is your opinion. If United Kingdom were to be invaded we could beat ANYONE. I can just imagine our superb army standing on the edge of the White cliffs of Dover waiting to be attacked. Oh yeah some guys called er... what's there?.... oh yeah! The S.A.S and the S.B.S

[TheOneAceRimmer]

I beleive in a strong bond btw. the United States and its allies to win any war.

[british_patriot]

I beleive in a strong bond btw. the United States and its allies to win any war.

726719[/snapback]

That is the only way America can win a war... with allies.

[Richdog]

[attachmentid=16406]In my opinion the United States of America could take on any country and still emerge with strong military might.  No matter how big the guns, or how many men the enemy have.  The United States will surely be victorious.

726602[/snapback]

Any country without nukes, yes.

What is not to forget is that with the USA in such hideous debt, do you really think it can afford to keep up that humongous military budget (420.7 billion) without at some point in the not too-distant-future suffering economic collapse and recession?

Your current national debt is 7'844,152,291,085.85 and has risen by 1.64 billion per day since September 30, 2004.

Now please think about the debt is increasing, and then pelase do a few sums and tell me whether you think the USA can sustain that level of military spending long-term. Answer: there's no fricken way it can.

If you want to compete with China and other emerging superpowers after the next 20-30 years you need to cut that budget and start re-allocating some resources into your economy and health/schooling budgets. Your military grossly overspends in order to make sure it can fight on two fronts at any given time, at incredibly long-range. That is not the way of a peaceful or defensive nation, historically it's what Julius Caesar, Alexander the great, Ghengis Kahn etc etc tried to do. Now im not comparing the USA in attitude to these people, just the spending habits and what the drive to build such a huge military resulted in... self-destruction and over-expansion.

I just worry that many Americans seem to be very short-sighted when it comes to their military, and don't seem to think too much about future possibilities...

Facts about the USA military budget...

*The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.

*The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

*The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.

*It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.

*The United States and its close allies account for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)

*The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spend $116.2 billion, 27.6% of the U.S. military budget.

Edited July 11, 2005 by Richdog

[SnakeProphet]

In my opinion the United States of America could take on any country and still emerge with strong military might. No matter how big the guns, or how many men the enemy have. The United States will surely be victorious

_______________________________________________________

That is your opinion. If United Kingdom were to be invaded we could beat ANYONE. I can just imagine our superb army standing on the edge of the White cliffs of Dover waiting to be attacked. Oh yeah some guys called er... what's there?.... oh yeah! The S.A.S and the S.B.S

Statements such as these coming from americans and their allies only show the vulnerability of these nations.

[gaz]

quote Dan o

As an ex soldier myself I have to say that I have serious doubts about your claim to be a fighting man. Most professional soldiers would not stoop to such vile remarks except perhaps in a pub, face to face. And even then it would likely be good natured and/or to blow off steam, and not be literal. I am not going to post links or sources to the near limitless examples of the American fighting man's courage and self sacrifice. Your clearly immature, maladjusted attitude relating to US soldiers speaks for itself. And if you truly are a soldier then I feel sorry for the British military.

oh yeah what about all those american soldiers in iraq writing the us goverment begging if they could come home?

Edited July 11, 2005 by gaz

[about:blank]

Dr. Strangehug coming with the GREAT statistics. Superb work.

When it comes to the friendly fire issue in the War in Iraq. This war is unlike any of recent history. We aren't fighting soldiers from another nation, we are fighting terrorists. To compare friendly fire casualties of this war to any other is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Dr. Strangehug]

British Patriot......America won wars against Mexico, Spain, Britain in 1812 with little or no help from her allies....not to mention a HUGE Civil War....I think that if we can handle a military power such as Britain back when Britain was known for her military strength....we could handle her today.....one-on-one......America vs. Britain......America would CLEARLY win....have you seen your militaries numbers? We have about the same amount of people in our NAVY as ya'll have in your WHOLE military........Britain is a wonderful ally of the U.S.........We've come too their aid(WW1, WW2, Cold War)....and they've come too ours(Persian Gulf War, War on Terror, Operaton Iraqi Freedom)....but if got down to the skinny......we could bomb Britain into submission.......with planes and ships.......without even putting a man on the ground. Your an island nation who is no longer a naval superpower.....how do win a war if the U.S. keeps food and supplies from coming into England...then bombs the sh** out of her?....The answer is....ba-da-bing....YOU DON'T!

[Dr. Strangehug]

Richdog

QUOTE(TheOneAceRimmer @ Jul 11 2005, 06:53 AM)

[attachmentid=16406]In my opinion the United States of America could take on any country and still emerge with strong military might.  No matter how big the guns, or how many men the enemy have.  The United States will surely be victorious.

*

Any country without nukes, yes.

What is not to forget is that with the USA in such hideous debt, do you really think it can afford to keep up that humongous military budget (420.7 billion) without at some point in the not too-distant-future suffering economic collapse and recession?

Your current national debt is 7'844,152,291,085.85 and has risen by 1.64 billion per day since September 30, 2004.

Now please think about the debt is increasing, and then pelase do a few sums and tell me whether you think the USA can sustain that level of military spending long-term. Answer: there's no fricken way it can.

If you want to compete with China and other emerging superpowers after the next 20-30 years you need to cut that budget and start re-allocating some resources into your economy and health/schooling budgets. Your military grossly overspends in order to make sure it can fight on two fronts at any given time, at incredibly long-range. That is not the way of a peaceful or defensive nation, historically it's what Julius Caesar, Alexander the great, Ghengis Kahn etc etc tried to do. Now im not comparing the USA in attitude to these people, just the spending habits and what the drive to build such a huge military resulted in... self-destruction and over-expansion.

I just worry that many Americans seem to be very short-sighted when it comes to their military, and don't seem to think too much about future possibilities... hmm.gif

Facts about the USA military budget...

*The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.

*The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

*The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.

*It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.

*The United States and its close allies account for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)

*The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spend $116.2 billion, 27.6% of the U.S. military budget.

Here's a breakdown of the U.S. National Debt.....

Source

Now...is this debt good or bad for the U.S.? The answer is.....it's neither......its not really a debt as we see it......it's money that the goverment owes the people mostly.....some of its foreign and international but thats not always a bad thing.....the first thing that Alexander Hamilton did when America won the fight for her freedom from the British Empire was to create a Federal Bank....and then put America into debt horribly with countries like Britain, France, and Germany.....he did this for a number of reasons....one.....if America owes British companies money.....these companies are going to want a stable, safe, and secure America......it's how they get their money back!*lol* If America falls.......or becomes so economically destitute...like places in Africa.....it will be unable to pay this debt...therefore.....its in the best interest of these large foreign companies to pressure their goverments to deal nicely with the USA because the USA is the companies bread and butter as far as money goes....understand?

If I owe you money...and me doing well is directly related to you receiving the money back...you'll want to see me do well....because you'll want your money!

The second reason is best described in this article by a greater mind than yours or mine....

Don't Pay Down the National Debt

It's a great deal.

By Steven E. Landsburg

Posted Thursday, Sept. 14, 2000, at 12:00 AM PT

Illustration by Robert Neubecker

Who will do you more good: the guy who wants to cut taxes or the guy who wants to pay down the national debt?

Well, why pay the debt at all? The answer—the one and only answer—is that it has to be paid eventually, and if we don't pay it now, we'll be taxed to pay it later. The more we pay up front, the lower our future taxes. In that sense, a payment on the national debt is a tax cut—it's a cut in tomorrow's taxes instead of today's.

Continue Article

So, the choice is not between tax cuts and something completely different; it's between tax cuts now and tax cuts later. That's a tough choice, because it's hard to predict what the "tax cuts later" might look like. At least the guy who calls for big immediate cuts has to tell you what kind of cuts he's got in mind: George W. Bush wants to lower income taxes and eliminate the inheritance tax. You might or might not like the package, but at least you have enough information to form an opinion.

By contrast, Al Gore wants to defer the bulk of his tax cuts to some time in the unspecified future—which means he's also deferring all the decisions about which taxes to cut. We don't even know who will be in office when the choices get made. That's a bit of a pig in a poke. Given all the surrounding uncertainty, you might even call it a risky tax scheme.

Still, Gore's unspecified future cuts might be a good bet if you expect your income—and consequently your tax bill—to rise over the next 10 years. The best kind of tax cut is one that kicks in when your tax bill is at its peak.

On the other hand, if you've got a lot of credit-card debt, you should demand your tax cut up front. Gore wants to pay down your share of the national debt, which accrues interest at about 6 percent a year. Bush wants to give you cash that you can use to pay down your Visa cards, which probably accrue interest at about 18 percent a year. That choice is a no-brainer. If Gore uses a dollar to pay down the national debt, you save $1.06 in future taxes. If Bush gives you a dollar you can use to pay down your Visa card, you save $1.18 in future credit card payments.

One of the first rules of fiscal sanity is: Never pay off a 6 percent loan when you've got an 18 percent loan outstanding. That rule applies equally to your 6 percent student loan and your share of the national debt. By reversing those priorities, Gore makes himself the candidate of fiscal irresponsibility. (In fact, for subtle reasons, the national debt costs you a bit less than 6 percent, making it an even better deal. Click here for an explanation.)

Student loans aside, the national debt is just about the only low-interest loan you can find nowadays. Ironically, life would be a lot easier for borrowers if we brought back the debtors' prisons. The threat of prison reassures lenders that you'll make timely payments, so more lenders want your business and they compete by offering lower interest rates. Paradoxical as it might sound, debtors' prisons are good for borrowers.

And fortunately for borrowers, we do have debtors' prisons, at least in a limited sense. True, you'll never go to jail for defaulting on your Visa card. But just try defaulting on your share of the national debt—in other words, just try not paying your taxes. Suddenly, jail is a real possibility. So when it comes to the national debt, the institution of debtors' prison is alive and well. That's what keeps the interest rate on the national debt so low—lenders know that the government stands ready to compel timely payments.

You get a great deal on the national debt because lenders know it's the only debt you have to pay. Great deals should never be discarded lightly. If he preserves the national debt, George W. Bush will make himself the borrower's best friend.

Related in SlateSteven E. Landsburg has long been critical of national debt alarmists. In 1996, he suggested that before politicians work to lower the national debt, they should first fix more pressing national issues, such as the high grass in his front lawn. A year later, he reminded readers that contrary to popular belief, the government can't force you to live at the expense of your grandchildren.

Source

[Deception]

No nation would win.

If America started to win and China was in danger of collapsing China would use nukes. If China started to win and America was about to collapse America would use nukes.

So either way the major cities of China and America would be leveled. Costing millions if not a billion lives to be ended.

[Commander CMG]

British Patriot......America won wars against Mexico, Spain, Britain in 1812 with little or no help from her allies....not to mention a HUGE Civil War....I think that if we can handle a military power such as Britain back when Britain was known for her military strength....we could handle her today.....one-on-one......America vs. Britain......America would CLEARLY win....have you seen your militaries numbers? We have about the same amount of people in our NAVY as  ya'll have in your WHOLE military........Britain is a wonderful ally of the U.S.........We've come too their aid(WW1, WW2, Cold War)....and they've come too ours(Persian Gulf War, War on Terror, Operaton Iraqi Freedom)....but if got down to the skinny......we could bomb Britain into submission.......with planes and ships.......without even putting a man on the ground.  Your an island nation who is no longer a naval superpower.....how do win a war if the U.S. keeps food and supplies from coming into England...then bombs the sh** out of her?....The answer is....ba-da-bing....YOU DON'T!

728047[/snapback]

1812 you have to go back a long way to pull a rabbit from the hat don't you, I remember a certain counrty snubbing the UK as an Allie when the Falklands kicked off... Ohhh Yes you did well in Vietnam also if I remember correctly or was that different also? The US had all this firepower at hand then so what happened?

Do you actually believe the crap you write, I can understand patriotism but not stupidity.

I think I best step back from this topic for a while before I say something that will get me banned by our Mods.

You should spend more time in the Conspiracy section as many there seem to think like you.

Edited July 12, 2005 by XSAS

[bathory]

Ohhh Yes you did well in Vietnam also if I remember correctly or was that different also? The US had all this firepower at hand then so what happened?

they slaughtered the NVA/Vietcong and succefully defended South Vietnam from being overrun by communist forces, however the threat of China and Russia stepping in as well as the peacenik movement and politicians tieing the hands of the military behind its back lead ultimately to a cease fire that was inevitably broken by the communist forces who then took control of south vietnam, slaughtering several million people in the process. Is that good enough for you?

Its the exact same reason why North Korea still exists today, the US couldn't do too much without drawing the Russians and Chinese into the conflicts which would have been a very bad thing for everyone.

[SnakeProphet]

they slaughtered the NVA/Vietcong and succefully defended South Vietnam from being overrun by communist forces, however the threat of China and Russia stepping in as well as the peacenik movement and politicians tieing the hands of the military behind its back lead ultimately to a cease fire that was inevitably broken by the communist forces who then took control of south vietnam, slaughtering several million people in the process. Is that good enough for you?

Right,and Ngo Din Diem was a saint.

Its the exact same reason why North Korea still exists today, the US couldn't do too much without drawing the Russians and Chinese into the conflicts which would have been a very bad thing for everyone.

Everyone?

I say it again:The western world is not THE world.It's not even the civilised world.

So if you say everyone you mean the USA and their allies,because I'm sure the Chinese and Russians wouldn't mind to have more power,just like dozens of other nations.

[Essan]

It's easy to beat the US Military - just make sure you hold the war in London 'cos they're not allowed within the M25!

[boogedee]

CHina could take on the US and win, with them Technology wouldnt matter, the US would iether run out of bullets or men befor the Chinies.

~Thanato

697750[/snapback]

There won't be any war between the U.S. and China any time soon, the two countries aer too tied up econmicaaly. The U.S. is not going to attack out warehose, and with the standard of living on the rise in China, I doubt they would be to eager to get incinerated either. Thn ther's always Russia, a potentail threat to both the U.S. and China. I remember a Russian politico making a comment not too long ago, that the Russain army will some day wash their boots in the Indian ocean -

[SnakeProphet]

There won't be any war between the U.S. and China any time soon, the two countries aer too tied up econmicaaly. The U.S. is not going to attack out warehose, and with the standard of living on the rise in China, I doubt they would be to eager to get incinerated either. Thn ther's always Russia, a potentail threat to both the U.S. and China. I remember a Russian politico making a comment not too long ago, that the Russain army will some day wash their boots in the Indian ocean -

Huh?

Russia actually has very close ties to China.They even opened their immigration ways for China not so long ago,if I'm not mistaken.

[boogedee]

Re: War of 1812 - actually, we didn't win that war. The navy did well, the army put up a bad showing, except for Chippewa and New Orleans, and even Jackson knew that if he pursued the Brits in the open, they would wax our asses. Anyway, Napoleon played both countires for dummies, and got us involved in a fratrcidal and unnatural war. Tied up British forces that could have been used against him in Europe. And if you think the French ever really gave a rats tail about the U.S., think again.

[bathory]

Right,and Ngo Din Diem was a saint.

better than the alternative:)

Everyone?

I say it again:The western world is not THE world.It's not even the civilised world.

So if you say everyone you mean the USA and their allies,because I'm sure the Chinese and Russians wouldn't mind to have more power,just like dozens of other nations.

yes EVERYONE

i'm pretty sure the escalation of the Cold War into a hot war where anyone not wearing 2000+ sunblock was going to be having a pretty horrible day:)

[SnakeProphet]

better than the alternative:)

I prefer Ho Tschi Minh.

yes EVERYONE

i'm pretty sure the escalation of the Cold War into a hot war where anyone not wearing 2000+ sunblock was going to be having a pretty horrible day:)

I think you can call it a hot war,since the USA officaly took part in the war.Cold war only apllies to Germany,if I'm not mistaken.

Damn,I just saw the context.You're right,sorry

Edited July 12, 2005 by Snake_6024

[Blackleaf]

I found this. It doesn't actually have any connection with this thread, but it talks about France as a world power. The writer says that the 4 most powerful countries in the world at the moment are -

1) United States

2) Britain

3) Russia

4) France

So he obviously doesn't think that China is anywhere near the US yet.

By Harold C. Hutchison

France, as a military power, has been the butt of jokes since the controversy over the liberation of Iraq in 2003. But France is a major world power, with a professional military that has superb equipment, much of it indigenously-designed and produced. France spends about $45 billion a year on defense, about 2.6 percent of France’s GDP.

One of the biggest claims France has to major power status is its nuclear arsenal. Consisting of four SSBNs, three Le Triomphant class and the L’Inflexible, each of these carries sixteen M4/M45 missiles, which have a range of 5300 kilometers, and carrying six MIRVs packing a 150-kiloton nuclear warhead. France also has a force of 70 Mirage 2000N bombers carrying the ASMP cruise missile, with a range of 300 kilometers and packing a 300-kiloton warhead. Super Etendards flying from the Charles de Gaulle can also carry this missile.

The French Army is also a powerful force. This force consists of eight brigades, and is now all-volunteer. This has made is much more capable. Equipped with a mixture of LeClerc (240) and AMX-30 (780) tanks, 1050 AMX-10 IFVs, 3820 VAB APCs, and a mix of artillery (216 towed 155mm artillery pieces and 372 self-propelled artillery pieces). The French Army also operates 80 Tigre attack helicopters and 267 Gazelle attack helicopters. Since shifting to an all-volunteer force, the French army has become much better in terms of quality, backed by career non-commissioned officers. This force has carried out operations, mostly in Africa (4,400 in Cote d’Ivorie/Ivory Coast, 1,200 in Chad, and 200 in the Central African Republic), but also in Bosnia (500 troops), Afghanistan (1,800 troops), and Kosovo (3,000).

The French Navy is also a force to be reckoned with. It operates the only CVN outside the U.S. Navy, the Charles de Gaulle. It also has a force of 12 destroyers (two guided-missile destroyers of the Cassard class, a single Suffren-class destroyer, two Tourville-class destroyers, and seven Georges Leyuges-class destroyers), and fifteen frigates (five Lafayette-class and ten D’Estienne d’Orves-class frigates). In addition to the four SSBNs, France also operates six Amethyste-class SSNs. This navy is slightly behind the Royal Navy – the French have a carrier that operates the Rafale, which outperforms the British Sea Harrier, but the British have a larger submarine force and the Royal Navy arguably has the best personnel on a man-for-man basis.

The French Air Force is also one of the best in the world. Among its aircraft are the Mirage 2000, which comes in several variants: The Mirage 2000C, which is primarily an air-defense fighter; the Mirage 2000D, a ground-attack version capable of carrying a wide variety of bombs and missiles join with the Mirage 2000N, which is the backbone of the French Air Force’s nuclear deterrence arm. France also has the Rafale, a powerful multi-role fighter that has some stealth features. France is retiring the older Mirage F1 and Jaguar fighter-bombers, while the Mirage 2000Cs are being upgraded to the Mirage 2000-5, making them potent multi-role aircraft.

France also has the industrial infrastructure – many of its military designs are indigenous, and produced in France. While this can be expensive, it also means that France does not rely on anybody else’s designs. France has worked with other countries in the past (most

notably with England on the Jaguar). As a world power, France arguably ranks fourth at the present, behind the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia due to its nuclear arsenal and professional military.

Edited July 12, 2005 by Blackleaf