Militarily, the United States is currently stronger than China

Note: This is not about a war, this is simply comparing the two countries militarily. The debt and the scenario Con made up at the start of his argument is irrelevant as I said we would never debate it. Thus, Con has violated the code of conduct so I wish for all voters to give that point to me. Numbers: "Actually the number according ot wikipedia(yes its credible, stop bashing on wiki haterz) is more like 4,585,000 deployed forces." As of now, I believe that Wikipedia is an OK source, but that is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. I believe my argument that China has 2,285,000 active troops in their military still stands. Why? Because in addition to my source (http://www.globalfirepower.com...). These sources also agree that China has around 2 million to 2.8 million men: http://wiki.answers.com... http://www.quora.com... http://articles.cnn.com... http://www.comw.org... http://www.godlikeproductions.com... Some of these sources may not be strong and some of them are, but they all widely agree that China has around 2 million to 2.8 million men. "Also during war time, conscription comes into play." Yeah, but were not debating that. I said that in terms of the size of their military, we are debating their active personnel and the reserves, not their populations that they can conscript. I did not want to add this because these people are largely untrained for war and would have to be go through training. Its better to debate the people that are already ready for war. My opponent has once again violated the code of conduct. "...in the end the QBZ is still considered a modern assult rifle, and can still compete with the M16 series." It can compete, but it is simply not better in quality which we are debating. Also my opponent did not debate against the M4. We are not debating about how expensive they are and how much can be produced, just their quality. So while my opponent talked about that unnecessary stuff, he has once again violated the code of conduct. Air Force My opponent did not even debate air force so I win this one. Land-based Weapons First off, my opponent brought his argument into two parts. First is tanks, second is artillery pieces. Let's talk about tanks. While my opponent discussed the differences of these two tanks, he failed to put in numbers. Currently, the United States has 9,573 tanks while China has 7,500 tanks. If the Battle of Kursk showed us anything, the number of tanks you have (Soviet Union) is more important than your quality (Germany). With more tanks, we would be able to overrun the Chinese tanks (http://www.globalfirepower.com...). Also, what about anti-tank weapons? These are land-based weapons and the US had 8,000 while China has 1,250 (http://www.globalfirepower.com...). The US has far more anti-tank guns than the Chinese to defeat tanks, so that adds more power to the US. The second was artillery. The US Army has the M109A6 "Paladin" Howitzer. The Chinese have the PLZ-45. The "Paladin" has an ammunition load of 39 rounds. The PLZ-45 has an ammunition load of 30 rounds. This is critical, the "Paladin" has more rounds than the PLZ-45 and that makes a difference in a battle. In terms machine gun rounds, the "Paladin" has 500 rounds and the PLZ-45 has 480 rounds. Even in terms of range, the number of rounds as very important (http://www.military-today.com..., http://www.military-today.com...). In addition, both sides have armored personnel carriers which is part of land-based weapons. Both Armored Personnel Carriers and Infantry Fighting Vehicles - either tracked or wheeled in nature - are included in the counts. The United States has far more of these than the Chinese. The United States has 26,653 of these while the Chinese have 7,700. Quality of these aside, the US has way more than the Chinese that this not even a debate. The US has a clear advantage. Thus, the Chinese cannot transport as much troops as the US in armored carriers (http://www.globalfirepower.com...). Once again, China falls short in terms of another land-based weapon; mortars. Mortars somewhat help to bridge the gap between small arms and dedicated artillery pieces. Totals cover all calibers of crew-served mortar weapons systems currently in service with a given army. The United States had 7,500 mortars while the Chinese have 1,050. Again quality does not need to be debated, the numbers overwhelmingly go to the US and thus the US has a clear advantage. Moving armies has never been easy - logistical vehicles do just that. Logistical vehicles are what help an army move supplies. Once again, the US has a far larger amount of logistical vehicles. They have 267,247 and China has 55,850. Easy victory for the US here. Navy "Its true that the US outnumbers the Chinese navy. But China will soon suprass the US in numbers of submarines." We are not debating about the future, we are debating the present. Once again, my opponent has violated the code of conduct by looking to the future. "Chinese now also have anti-air carrier missles. It is more than capable of defending itself from US invasion." Yeah, and I am sure the US have some to. The only difference is that the US has 11 and China has 1, so much if we destroy their one aircraft carrier (http://www.globalfirepower.com...). Cyber Warfare In terms of cyb....wait WTF?! Again where in the rules did I say we would debate cyber warfare????? My opponent has violated the code of conduct so many times I really think you should add another point from anything because of how bad he is to stay in conduct. Budget Again the you violate the code of conduct since we are not talking about the debt. My argument meant that the US has a larger budget still stands.