General Discussions

**audiomad** · 12-15-2007, 02:02 PM

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/ch.html

This info is from the CIA's world fact site just look at China's army size its the largest on the planet.

**joder** · 12-15-2007, 11:51 PM

On the link you provided, I didn't see how many were actually serving in the Chinese military but those that were available between the ages of 18 - 49.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...f_armed_forces
shows the actual number which is much less than the possible number. Still they are the largest army in the world which would be expected since they have the largest number of people and are headed by basically a totalitarian regime.

**audiomad** · 12-16-2007, 05:45 AM

Its the same number 2255 thousand 22 million

**joder** · 12-16-2007, 03:21 PM

On wikipedia it listed it a 2,255,000 or 2 million 255 thousand. I didn't see any number listed for the actual serving size on the link you posted.

**fastreplies** · 12-16-2007, 04:18 PM

Let me put it this way.

If China unloads 100 Millions armed with hunting knifes Army (against fully armed U.S. Army) on West cost they will make to East cost with 20 Millions to spare.

Am I joking?
No at all.
Just think about it.
Someone will need to bury 80 Millions people and given the amount whole U.S. population will be busy to do just that for days to come.

fastreplies

**ForrestCroce** · 12-16-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Am I joking?
No at all.
Just think about it.

No need to imagine or guess; history bares this out.

Of course, we've moved into a new era of history. A hundred million hypothetical invaders with knives in a country of 300 million people ... with atom bombs as part of the picture, gets harder to call.

**joder** · 12-16-2007, 04:39 PM

fastreplies,

First of all, your idea has insurmountable logistics problems.

China only has a standing army of 2.5 million. You will have to manufacture arms for the rest.

How are they going to get to the U.S.? Ships traveling several thousand miles would be blown out of the water by the superior U.S. Air Force and Navy.
If they try to go through Russia and Canada (have to be in winter) they would be carpet bombed by B-52's.

**fastreplies** · 12-16-2007, 04:58 PM

Ok joder, I will take away from them knives and replace them with toilet paper
and made them civilians but even them about 5 Millions will made to Washington

fastreplies

**joder** · 12-16-2007, 05:00 PM

Your forgetting the most important thing: we have George W. Bush as our commander in chief. He is the protector of the free world

**ForrestCroce** · 12-16-2007, 05:14 PM

Really? And I thought he was still The Decider...

**fastreplies** · 12-16-2007, 05:17 PM

No problems

Lets takeout silver spoon from his mouth and turn it shovel and then
put him in front of disposal units

fastreplies

**cbwm** · 12-16-2007, 05:58 PM

Why would they want to go to the U.S.?

**ForrestCroce** · 12-16-2007, 06:24 PM

Well, probably the first thing that would happen if China invaded the US is that their stock pile of dollars would become worthless. Which would embarrass the Communist Party, cause the unrest they fear more than anything, and be a disaster.

Their 'superior numbers' in terms of a potential army is really a good defensive trick. China and the Soviet Union had some disagreements over communist ideology. The USSR didn't do so well in Afghanistan, but never dared try anything too overt with China.

If I were really an extreme liberal I'd say bin Laden had more to do with toppling the Soviet Union than Reagan. I've never actually seen any concrete evidence the CIA trained him specifically as part of the Mujahadeen that drove back the Soviet invaders. I can't really imagine a rich Saudi would side with the Americans just because he doesn't like the Soviets either?

**cbwm** · 12-16-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

I can't really imagine a rich Saudi would side with the Americans just because he doesn't like the Soviets either?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend? To say Bin Laden wasn't U.S. trained ruins all the spin the liberals love to put out about how the U.S. created it's own terror problem. Not being on the inside, I find it as likely as not that we trained him. In either event, its not fair to say Afghanistan, though costly, single handedly brought down the USSR, just as Bin Laden did not singlehandedly oust them from Afghanistan. Massive spending on ICBMs had as much to do with it as anything.

**audiomad** · 12-17-2007, 05:50 AM

Give your guns back to America then you would be left with knifes China invented the gun they are also leaders in laser technology, they export just as many guns as America does so to think you would be winners in a battle its just nuts you could'nt beet Vietnam in a war, Vietnam a country not much bigger than my own

**navyfalcon** · 12-18-2007, 12:35 AM

We had a taste of China's army during Korea. 10 Chinese army divisions at Inchon. We left with great casualties. They had more people than we had bullets and we couldn't resupply fast enough. They proved their point. They said "we have more men than you have bullets". They still do.
falcon

**ultra** · 12-21-2007, 11:19 AM

well quantity never matters what matters is quality ... and history is full of this ... how about 1 million vs 40 ... it happened and 40 won ...

and 21st century is age of bombs ... throw them from sky ...

**CSS4Life** · 12-21-2007, 12:24 PM

China might have the largest Army, but old Blightly (aka Britain) has the best trained one. The SAS, a special army unit, would wipe the floor with thousands of Chinese soldiers if they needed too.

China will probably overtake the US as the main superpower of the 21st century though - they've got a booming economy and a population 3 times that of the USA. I don't really think in our modern times that it would be possible, or feasible, to take over the world simply by force. Back in World War 2, it might have been, but these days things are just too complicated. A one-world government that most countries accept voluntarily is more likely if anything

**jamestl2** · 12-21-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whym

I don't really think in our modern times that it would be possible, or feasible, to take over the world simply by force. Back in World War 2, it might have been, but these days things are just too complicated. A one-world government that most countries accept voluntarily is more likely if anything

You mean like a *New World Order*?

**CSS4Life** · 12-21-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamestl2

You mean like a *New World Order*?

Precisely