You can’t use numbers of people to make comparisons between countries because they are misleading. Some countries use their soldiers for construction work (China) or have whole industries owned by the military (Iran). A person working on a defense industry assembly line isn’t a member of the military in most countries.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guards were put in charge of creating what is today known as the Iranian military industry. Under their command, Iran’s military industry was enormously expanded
Using numbers of personnel to compare China or Iran to a country like Belgium would make Belgium look like a pushover. Belgium has a tiny military but uses it’s location in Europe to ensure security through diplomacy and membership in NATO.
I promise you would be harder to invade the headquarters of NATO than either of those countries.
I don’t know what being harder to invade has to do with anything. The question was largest army. The fact that you’re trying to put all these extra criteria on top of that is a problem with you not the question. Also construction work and other logistics are very much part of an army and no one would be foolish enough to ignore their importance. That’s been true for thousands of years. Certainly true for the US Army we have the US Corps of Engineers and the Seabees as well as other units. They’re just as much soldiers as anyone else and frankly maybe more important.
But the US doesn’t literally use soldiers as construction workers to build random roads and bridges. They use private contractors for most things like that. The groups you mentioned just help out a little to practice for wartime. Most construction is done privately.
Size of the “military” on paper is meaningless from a defense perspective, which is the main purpose of a military. What matters is the amount and quality of troops that you can deploy and support in the field, and the speed at which that happens. Someone paving a road in Hunan or building drones for export in Tehran shouldn’t be counted as a “soldier” because they are not able to be deployed.
The US doesn’t count it’s construction workers or factory workers as “soldiers”.
I go over a bridge every day that was built by the Army Corps of Engineers. There’s numerous cities in this country who rely on levees built by the Army Corps of Engineers. Army Corps of Engineers does way more than you think they do.
If you want to continue to add all these extra criteria that’s fine, that was never the criteria of the graphic. It seems silly to spend your time complaining that a graphic with very specific criteria doesn’t contain a lot of other random criteria. If that’s how you choose to spend your time good for you though.
The list is just incorrect, and I explained why. South Korea has only 51 million people. Do you really think that 7.5% of all people are in the military? No, that includes “reserves” who actually do not work as soldiers.
In that sense, every male in the US signs up for selective service at 18. Should every male aged 18 to 40 be counted as a member of the military?
You can’t use numbers of people to make comparisons between countries because they are misleading. Some countries use their soldiers for construction work (China) or have whole industries owned by the military (Iran). A person working on a defense industry assembly line isn’t a member of the military in most countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Armed_Forces
Using numbers of personnel to compare China or Iran to a country like Belgium would make Belgium look like a pushover. Belgium has a tiny military but uses it’s location in Europe to ensure security through diplomacy and membership in NATO.
I promise you would be harder to invade the headquarters of NATO than either of those countries.
I don’t know what being harder to invade has to do with anything. The question was largest army. The fact that you’re trying to put all these extra criteria on top of that is a problem with you not the question. Also construction work and other logistics are very much part of an army and no one would be foolish enough to ignore their importance. That’s been true for thousands of years. Certainly true for the US Army we have the US Corps of Engineers and the Seabees as well as other units. They’re just as much soldiers as anyone else and frankly maybe more important.
Sir what is the primary purpose of a military?
dick waving.
But the US doesn’t literally use soldiers as construction workers to build random roads and bridges. They use private contractors for most things like that. The groups you mentioned just help out a little to practice for wartime. Most construction is done privately.
Size of the “military” on paper is meaningless from a defense perspective, which is the main purpose of a military. What matters is the amount and quality of troops that you can deploy and support in the field, and the speed at which that happens. Someone paving a road in Hunan or building drones for export in Tehran shouldn’t be counted as a “soldier” because they are not able to be deployed.
The US doesn’t count it’s construction workers or factory workers as “soldiers”.
I go over a bridge every day that was built by the Army Corps of Engineers. There’s numerous cities in this country who rely on levees built by the Army Corps of Engineers. Army Corps of Engineers does way more than you think they do.
If you want to continue to add all these extra criteria that’s fine, that was never the criteria of the graphic. It seems silly to spend your time complaining that a graphic with very specific criteria doesn’t contain a lot of other random criteria. If that’s how you choose to spend your time good for you though.
I’m just explaining to you that all the “largest armies” on there are outliers. Wikipedia lists Iran as having only 600K active personnel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Armed_Forces
The list is just incorrect, and I explained why. South Korea has only 51 million people. Do you really think that 7.5% of all people are in the military? No, that includes “reserves” who actually do not work as soldiers.
In that sense, every male in the US signs up for selective service at 18. Should every male aged 18 to 40 be counted as a member of the military?
Sir facts and logic have no place pointing out cherry picked data on propagandised infographics.