Is China stronger, militarily, than the United States?
138826
Most of you seem to miss the point China has a standing army of 2.4 million the USA is 1.7 with reserves and everything.  We spend about 450 billion on Defense a year they spend 70 billion.  China doesnt have access to top technology due to a EU and USA arms embargo they put on them in 1981 when they killed chinese student protestors.  THey buy all their weapons from Russia which are 2nd rate.  Make no mistake about it though they are becoming more and more a threat economicly as their economy is growing fast and as they moderenize their army.  AS of now we are stronger but a full out war with China would hurt us abit.  Remember EU countries have cut Defense spending i think Britian is the largest army aroun 500k troops.  SO we would not get alot of help from them
1179725
China is the second most powerful country they out number us.  Only advantage we have is our technology and wepons are more advance because we spend more money on this.
455343
China becomes the new economic superpower... U.S. becomes much more like current eurpean nations are now... powerful, but not the main power... overall, there won't be a major difference on "the streets"
500599
China has by far the most numerous forces, and as proven in Korea they make up for lack of technology by rigid discipline and force of numbers. Most of their technology however is licenced Russian technology and the reality of that is that with the exception of the AK 47 is isnt really very spectacular.\n\nRussia still maintains large forces but particulalry since the collapse of the USSR it is badly paid, badly equipped and therefore badly motivated. It is unlikley that they could sustain significant  military action either economically or politcally now.\n\nIndia has a massive army also, and has good training and due to its row with Pakistan keeps itself ready for war. The Indian professional soldier (as part of the British Army) has always fought with courage and distinction (with the exception of a few incidents of changing sides against the Japanese due to the activities of the Indian Nationalist Movement). Equipment wise however they exist of second and third hand Russian and Chinese stuff as they spend most of their defence budget on Nukes which they point at Pakistan.\n\nFrance maintains the largest armed forces in Europe and has based its defence policy since World War two on having an independent capability from NATO of which it is not a member. Its well equipped and has good technology (France was the only western nation to supply military equipment to Iraq, despite the rhetoric from people). Its military is also positioned around the globe as France remains a colonial power.\n\nLasly my very own United Kingdom (England is one of four countries which make up the UK). We have a tiny military force compared the the others you mention. Our airforce has less planes in total than the specialist support aircraft in the US Marine Corps alone. Our entire army would fit into a soccer stadium, and the last time we had to mount a martime invasion of anywhere we had to "borrow" the QE2 cruise liner, several car ferries, and container ships because our Navy hasnt got enough ships.\n\nOur SA80 rifles are made of plastic and fall apart in the sand (although the new ones are better), we sent troops to Iraq sharing one set of body armour between two as there were not enough, and our battlefield radios don't work.  \n\nOur Eurofighter is brilliant but five years and a billion dollars behind schedule, and the Harrier jump jet is still amazing but being phased out due to cost.\n\nDespite all of that on the positive side the British armed forces are absolutely first class at what they do and have proven themselves in battle against superior odds again and again. Falklands, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Oman, Malaya, Borneo, Afghanistan etc, and from a special forces perspective the SAS and SBS are something to be proud of.\n\nThe British armed forces, hawe been designed to perform a key role alongside the U.S and our European allies as part of NATO, and to be a fast reaction force for crisis around the world. They are no longer scaled to have a one on one war with anyone.
438605
Yes, China will continue to build their military and there isn't much we can do about it at this point.  However, we can discourage or slow down some of it by not pouring billions of dollars each year into China, by buying their cheap stuff.  Hell, we could buy cheap stuff from Mexico and at the same time relieve ourselves of the immigration fiasco with Mexico because of their lack of jobs.\n\nThe cold war is back and we must recognize that fact.  Like it or not we must quit this nonsense of expecting positive results with Russia playing the part of power broker, relative to Iran, or China with North Korea.  North Korea is China's counter balance to our relationship with Taiwan.  Iran is Russia's counter balance with our interference in the old Eastern Bloc states.\n\nIn the meantime, as China and Russia build militarily, we damn well better stay ahead of them if we expect to survive.  The only thing either country respects is military might.  At this point we are top dog and I personally think it is in our best interest to stay that way.  Diplomacy will not do it, these adversaries who are the legacy of Mao and Stalin are just biding their time until we show weakness like we did in the nineties.  They love the fact that we are preoccupied with the middle east while they pull the puppet strings on Iran and N. Korea.
483464
Depends where the war is fought.  China would have a hard time feeding themselves if we went to war, and that advantage alone would crumble the longevity of a war.\n\nSecond disadvantage is that 90% of China lives in 10% of its landmass, so conventional bombing would devastate Chin, whereas our industry and population is spread out.\n\nThe Chinese economy would collapse worse than ours because their currency is tied to ours, so the currency market would be equally devastating, with slightly more to China due to its lack of an infrastructure and free market policies.\n\nChina has a problem moving their army, so first they would have to move against Alaska, occupy it, then use Alaska to launch a US invasion. \n\nThe only real advantage of China is numbers.  The have more soldiers than we have bullets, so they will win with swarm tactics just like they did in Korea.\n\nEventually, the economics of the war would give the USA its necessary linchpin for victory, much like the union in the Civil War.
89335
Well, for one thing, China will be another superpower to contend with.  They have lots of people all of the same sense of nationality and patriotism; they have tons of money and they develop their own arms and nuclear weapons.  They should really be taken seriously.\n\nOh yeah, and they've established bases all around the world.  Isn't there a Chinatown in your state?
471066
I think England has the strongest most powerful military, but France also has a nuclear weapon.\n\nGerman economy has a stronger GDP.\n\nSo there isn't a real definate answer. But if you had to tie me to one Id say Germany cause of their economy and the fact that they have allies enough where if they were attacked again by Russia they'd fight em off.
91822
The United States, hands down.  China's zillion man army is drafted, so they are not motivated or highly trained.  The U.S. has the most advanced weapons and the brightest military minds in the world.
535063
Russians and Chinese will have plenty of courage but the $ and science will not be available to develop the level of technology that the US spends so much money on.  And when push comes to shove courage displays itself in any military.  Thus you are left with the US.
390005
India is more powerful than Pakistan in terms of military might. India has almost double the manpower and combat equipment as a previous poster has pointed out. But today, military might cannot be solely measured in terms of numbers. There are more factors that come into play.\nFor eg: Though India has a very large military, they have 3 hostile borders to defend (Pakistan, China and Bangladesh). So its large army's resources are stretched. Even if there's a conflict with Pakistan, India just cannot afford to dedicate its entire army to the conflict, it still has to maintain reasonable force levels at the Chinese and Bangla borders. Pakistan on the other hand, can dedicate almost all resources to the conflict with India. Iran and Afghanistan are not about to invade them from the other side and the Chinese are their best pals. They even share nuclear weapons technology clandestinely. So you see how..... though India's military is larger, Pakistan can match them almost equally if you consider the above.\nNow lets look at another angle.... the economies! Here, India wins hands down. Their economy can sustain a war for much longer than Pakistan. Pakistan just does not have the resources to withstand and sustain a war effort for long. If the Indian Navy were to blockade Karachi harbour, Pakistan would probably run out of oil within a month.\nAnyways, there are just too many such factors. If you look at the overall picture, India will still win any conflict with Pakistan... but eventually... as in, it may not be a cake-walk.
9524
The rise of China and India is without question. These two countries, with their enormous populations and embrace of market economies, will challenge the United States as economic superpowers. Europe, with its aging populations and lack-luster economies will fall further behind. The United States will remain a dominant economic and military superpower, and will likely remain a major player in diplomatic negotiations, disaster relief, and regional conflicts.
218639
No way, China is fast becoming a superpower. I think they will eventually become a superpower beyond what the world has ever seen. They are already in a position to make the US go bankrupt whenever they decide it will be in their best interest.
248685
To the U.S.A of course they think that China is a threat because Americans dun wanna get robbed of their leading position in military, economics and technology in terms of world standard.\nIn my opinion it will be worse than USA in the sense that it will be less involved in world's politics. For instance poking into other countries business. Then we wouldn't have a WORLD LEADER to lead the world in the so called(right way).You may think that its not good to poke into other people's business but the fact that is that someone must lead the world just like how the father decides in a family otherwise the world will be even more disorganised. Again then China will then be a threat to not only the USA , but also to the WORLD.
296820
The US is by far, number one in almost every way. Number two is where the real debate is. You could argue China because of shear numbers if nothing else. Russia still has a formidible defense, although their technology is way behind. Britain could make a good arguement for being number two, especially since their navy is top notch. Israel probably has the second best air force (and in some ways their air force may be the most technologically advanced).
1139881
China is already an economic superpower \nIt is the no.1 manufacturing destination in the world !\n\nAs far as overall econonomy, China overtaking the USA ... some way to go !!!
191141
Most... United States of America...\n\nLeast... China...