"Turkey has the second largest number of troops in the NATO alliance"

[Az]

Maybe we don't think that the domineering tactics so favoured by a lot of the rest of the world are for us.

damn you, Brits, arrogant bastards the lot of you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Clear Skies
And since when did the size of your army determine the size of your clout?

Armies win wars. The navy and air force exist to serve thier needs.

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Armies win wars. The navy and air force exist to serve thier needs.

Economic and diplomatic influence can be a lot more helpful. True, words need to be backed up by at least a semblance of force, but sometimes a semblance isn't much at all.
Plus, size isn't everything. 300,000 ragged peasants against 30,000 well-equipped, well-trained soldiers isn't exactly a foregone conclusion.

[David Floyd]

Yes, Turkey has the second-largest army in NATO. Quality-wise, though, and in terms of warfighting power, I doubt it's above GB or Germany.

[Nubclear]

If China joined NATO, then it would have the largest number of troops

[David Floyd]

But it would still be a **** military

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But it would still be a **** military

Strength in numbers, my friend Although if they were part of NATO, you would have nothing to worry about But they probably will not join NATO....

[David Floyd]

Strength in numbers, my friend

As was pointed out before, 300,000 peasants aren't going to defeat 30,000 heavily armed professional troops. Especially not when backed up by air, naval, industrial, and technological supremacy

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by David Floyd


As was pointed out before, 300,000 peasants aren't going to defeat 30,000 heavily armed professional troops. Especially not when backed up by air, naval, industrial, and technological supremacy

How about 370,000,000? Along with, of course, conscription and local militia forces

[David Floyd]

China doesn't have 370,000,000 men. They have that potential manpower, but then again, the US has the potential manpower for about 70,000,000. That's a 5:1 ratio of Chinese to Americans, yet I would have to say that one US division could defeat five Chinese ones without much trouble.

In fact, at Chosin Resevoir, 1st Marine Division defeated nine Chinese divisions.

And at 73 Easting, elements of the US 2nd ACR defeated large elements of the Tawalkana and 12th Armored Divisions.

But on the other hand, China has no more of a chance at fielding 370 million men than the US has at fielding 70 million.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by David Floyd
China doesn't have 370,000,000 men. They have that potential manpower, but then again, the US has the potential manpower for about 70,000,000. That's a 5:1 ratio of Chinese to Americans, yet I would have to say that one US division could defeat five Chinese ones without much trouble.

I guess when we get around to killing China off (Because remember, it has long range nukes and its an ally of Pakistan ) we'll see won't we?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


I guess when we get around to killing China off (Because remember, it has long range nukes and its an ally of Pakistan ) we'll see won't we?

We were allied with Pakistan first!

[David Floyd]

I guess when we get around to killing China off (Because remember, it has long range nukes and its an ally of Pakistan ) we'll see won't we?

Arguing about nukes is pointless. If a nuclear war starts, no one wins. Although in a US vs. China nuclear war, China would lose much worse. A US attack sub would take out China's only Xia in the first 30 seconds, and it's possible that a US first strike with nuclear armed B-2s and SSBNs right off the coast could almost completely disarm China's ICBM force.

We'd still probably lose some major West Coast cities, though.

In any case, any forseeable US vs. China war would be an air/naval war primarily. You can't even begin to argue that China could present a naval challenge, and I think it's sufficiently clear that China's obsolete air force (with under 200 reasonably modern fighters) could hope to take on the USAF.

[Saint Marcus]

the Korean war ended in a stalemate. That was a classic case in Numbers vs Power.

[David Floyd]

Perhaps, SM, but the US was by no means fully committed, in terms of military power, to the war.

And any war on the Korean Peninsula today would be primarily fought by the South Korea army rather than the US.