Exactly. Our military has a lot more training, better equipment, and more important logistics.

But you forgot about their economy. Ours is twice their size, and while they are growing at a rate of 11% year and ours at 2% a year, China's growth is going to slow down.

> Iraq, was the 4th Largest Military in the world

Bahaha, that was an interesting note. You mean in number of personnel right?

But anyway Iraq was no indication of a real war. China or Russia could have wiped them off the map, just as quickly. Unlike Iran is today, Iraq then was a broken down hell-hole with few friends and plenty of corruption.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> > Iraq, was the 4th Largest Military in the world

Bahaha, that was an interesting note. You mean in number of personnel right?

But anyway Iraq was no indication of a real war. China or Russia could have wiped them off the map, just as quickly. Unlike Iran is today, Iraq then was a broken down hell-hole with few friends and plenty of corruption.

Yes Personnel, but understand the Iraq Army also had a large amount of Soviet Tanks and MIGS purchased with Oil money for the Iran-Iraq.

"Unlike Iran is today, Iraq then was a broken down hell-hole with few friends and plenty of corruption"

Correct, and WRONG - No, Iraq had a huge military for 2 reasons,
1. Just like N.Korea Iraq spent all the riches they made from Oil on the Military while the people starved, the Iraqis had some decent Logistics UNLIKE the Chinese, they were able to rage a war with an Equally matched Iran, for many years (They operated inside the Iranian borders.), as well as the seizure, and invasion of Kuwait -

The logistics the Iraqis used, proved to be the undoing to the massive military, they moved in HUGE convoys, during an event on what is known as the Hi way of Hell or death, U.S. Forces wipes out retreating Iraq forces that were trying to re-enter Iraq through back tracking up their supply lines.

The Russians COULD NOT beat Iraq - Example, Afghanistan, a less organized Military Repealed the Russians.

China, doesn't have the logistics to fight a Pre-Gulf War Iraqi Army, the army's are roughly the same size.

It's the Air Superiority, combines with our Naval armaments, and observation Technology that made it easy for us to wipe out the Iraqi Army - They had no Navy and while they had an Air Force, luckily our Fighters at the time were designed to counter Russian Migs, and basically The U.S. Has one of the few Air Forces DESIGNED to destroy such a craft.

Russian Tech VRS Russian Tech.... (Russia Invading Iraq, a larger scale of a Afghan invasion that they failed at)
Russian Tech VRS Russian Tech.... (China has limited maintenance capabilities for their Aerial and mechanized divisions making flying, and operation of sorties impossible.)

People need to learn THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR of a military invasion IS logistics, Alexander wasn't THAT great, but he knew his Logistics were key, as did Napoleon.

And DO not underrate nations like Iraq's Military, while far inferior to Superpowers, and world great powers, they are battle hardened, and well funded with oil, just because the civilians starve, doesn't mean the military does..

Much of the money the US spends on defence is put into the lavish lifestyle of  their troops instead of weapons.And for their protection because the american public doesn

> esa wrote:

> Much of the money the US spends on defence is put into the lavish lifestyle of  their troops instead of weapons.And for their protection because the american public doesn

Regardless of whether or not the Us military personnel have a "lavish" lifestyle, the fact remains that a large portion of US military spending is on staff salaries.

Obviously China Pays far lower salaries.

Also, the 59bn figure for Chinese military spending is more likely than not a huge understimate, the real figure is probably much higher.

"In 2008, the US published estimates that showed China's military spending exceeding 139 billion USD. This is a point of contention between the US-China relations. Former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has accused China several times of hiding its real military spending"

Maybe in 10 years. Maybe less.

Sources please .

The economical crisis has not magically whisked away factories or factory workers..

> Red_Rooster wrote:

> yes but most factories are not located in the US anyway... the us economy is based mostly on services (i.e. restaurants, hair salon, transportation) I dont think we can outproduce anyone but we can produce the highest quality of war materials. The US has a lot ofprivate companies like lockheed martin that produce the military weapons for the US military. These weapons can only be produced in the US.

Exactly. USA, along with the better part of western Europe, has done it's best to outsource it's production, while focusing on said "Service".

I have no figures or sources to back me up at the moment, as I'm too lazy to find some, but it seems fairly obvious that every "civilized" nation has been globalizing, and thus outsourcing their 1st and 2nd-priority services (ie. production of any given merchandize / household appliance / instrument / whatever) to other countries, where the general salary-level is mere percentages of what we would have to pay our "own" workers for the same job.

Thus, any "wartime production", or warfare-economics as some like to call it, will take a lot of time, effort and resources to get up and running for any of these countries, who has taken such a great part in the outsourcing of their main production capabilities.

Bottom line is that the nations of the west (I am deliberately NOT only saying USA on this topic - Since a lot of Europe actually has just as much influence on the economical aspect.) could face serious troubles if they were cut off from their global economical sources and/or partners.

---

Asian countries (most... Not all), however, don't seem to have grasped the idea of globalizm, wherefore these could easily bring themselves into an independent warfare-economy.
There may be other factors that would slow these nations down in times of war, ie. politics, logistics, general economical standards etc. but I don't have the appropriate sources or the general knowledge to claim any such facts.

Although it would be wise to produce military things inside the country as it is being done, expansion would be hard.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> > we are an industrial nation who can out produce ANYONE in a war time environment.

Are you sure this is still the case?

Yes i think this is still the case, we still have huge nationalized industry, along with the American Steel industry, we can out produce anyone, Yes globalism does mean some things built by American companies are built overseas.

But in a Global large scale war (I.E. WWIII), factories can be build very quickly and put into action.

The purpose of what i said was to demonstrate that the U.S. UNLIKE China, isn't a Militaristic nation, it's an industrial nation, and we don't keep our standing force as large it we keep it during a large war.

During WWII, and Korea the U.S. had nearly 20,000,0000 men and women in uniform.

Example, the U.S. Marines currently have 3 Divisions, , 3 Combat Service Divisions, 3 Air Wings - That is active, and 1 of each reserves, so a total of 4 divisions, 4 Combat Services, and 4 Wings, during combat that number can expand to 9 ACTIVE.