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

Lancer · December 29, 2002, 15:08

Just heard this on FOX, can it be true? Second only to the US is what I assume they are saying. More troops than Germany or GB?

Good for them, but why does Turkey need such a large army?

Anyone have a chart on NATO force levels?

Imran Siddiqui · December 29, 2002, 15:12

It so the evil Greeks won't try anything funny.

Eli · December 29, 2002, 15:13

They are preparing together with Israel for a joint invasion of Greece.

Lefty Scaevola · December 29, 2002, 15:18

The Bundeswehr has shrunk to a pitiful remanent of what it was when you were at the Fulda Gap, Lancer.

Lancer · December 29, 2002, 15:27

Ahh, I see Lefty, it's not that Turkey is so mighty in NATO, it's that europe has turned wimp. Still, I would have thought that the Brits would have more mustle...

Imran, my experience is that the Greeks don't allow anything funny anyway...

Eli, have you been watching CNN again?

Imran Siddiqui · December 29, 2002, 15:34

Brits have ships, remember?

Lancer · December 29, 2002, 15:36

yaa

monkspider · December 29, 2002, 15:37

We must fight Turkish imperialism! If not, they will be at the gates of Vienna again before you know it.

Imran Siddiqui · December 29, 2002, 15:40

Is that such a bad thing? Really?

Lancer · December 29, 2002, 15:43

I'm beginning to see a dark plot growing to take over the Greek wing of Apolyton, eh Imran, eh?

Imran Siddiqui · December 29, 2002, 15:50

They would be much more fun as Turks, wouldn't they?

Az · December 29, 2002, 15:57

MarkG, paiktis, axi, and Keygen the freedom fighters....

It reminds me of that cute pic Siro posted one time, with the gay anal sex scene... I think you remember that one, Imran.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · December 29, 2002, 16:02

It's true that Turkey has loads of troops. However they're armned with nothing morew deadly than pointy slippers.

Dauphin · December 29, 2002, 16:29

Quote:

Just heard this on FOX, can it be true? Second only to the US is what I assume they are saying. More troops than Germany or GB?

The UK has ~200,000 servicemen. Turkey has 3-4 that many.

Clear Skies · December 29, 2002, 16:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Ahh, I see Lefty, it's not that Turkey is so mighty in NATO, it's that europe has turned wimp. Still, I would have thought that the Brits would have more mustle...

Maybe we don't think that the domineering tactics so favoured by a lot of the rest of the world are for us.
And since when did the size of your army determine the size of your clout?

Az · December 29, 2002, 17:03

Quote:

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 · December 29, 2002, 17:29

Quote:

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 · December 29, 2002, 17:45

Quote:

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 · December 29, 2002, 17:56

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 · December 29, 2002, 18:27

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

David Floyd · December 29, 2002, 18:28

But it would still be a **** military

Nubclear · December 29, 2002, 19:07

Quote:

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 · December 29, 2002, 19:09

Quote:

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 · December 29, 2002, 19:19

Quote:

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 · December 29, 2002, 19:32

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 · December 29, 2002, 19:36

Quote:

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 · December 29, 2002, 19:38

Quote:

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 · December 29, 2002, 19:44

Quote:

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 · December 29, 2002, 19:50

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

David Floyd · December 29, 2002, 19:52

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.