Plus, I wonder the number of those serving in the North Korean military were forced to serve, out of their own freewill?

Probably a mix. I'd guess that being a soldier might be preferable to whatever alternative jobs/lifestyles are available. Not that being a solder in the DPRK is glamorous. Perhaps given the opportunity in battle, a lot of them would either easily surrender or desert. 

Probably a mix. I'd guess that being a soldier might be preferable to whatever alternative jobs/lifestyles are available. Not that being a solder in the DPRK is glamorous. Perhaps given the opportunity in battle, a lot of them would either easily surrender or desert. 

It's also very clear that most of the North Korean people are not happy with their current lifestyle. The way those people seem to worship their "government" is almost cult-like. Serving in the military I'd guess would have some sort of benefits, such as a free or inexpensive portion of food, reduced cost of housing maybe? Not sure, I've never been to North Korea. Sad the situation there.

kek i still dont understand this graph.

 

I don't see what is so hard to understand in this graph. On one line you've the country name, the total population of this country, the ammount of population serving in the army, and the percentage it represents compared to the total population of this country.

I heard some news that said North Korea is now forcing women to work in the military, source: http://jezebel.com/north-korea-now-requires-mandatory-military-service-fo-1683088602

I don't see what is so hard to understand in this graph. On one line you've the country name, the total population of this country, the ammount of population serving in the army, and the percentage it represents compared to the total population of this country.

no not that why ISNT CANADA ON THERE!!!!

NYC "would be behind Greece and AHEAD of North Korea", In what context? Financial, Military Strength, IQ, Education, Birth Rate Defects? I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Sorry, what I meant by army is financially supported. The NYPD is apparently a better financed armed force than North Korea's army.

no not that why ISNT CANADA ON THERE!!!!

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=canada

 

I don't think they would have made the list

I heard some news that said North Korea is now forcing women to work in the military, source: http://jezebel.com/north-korea-now-requires-mandatory-military-service-fo-1683088602

LMAO!

 

That's got to be a complete joke. How desperate can your nation be to where you need to force women into the Armed Forces, and you're not even in a time of war? It doesn't make any damn sense.

no not that why ISNT CANADA ON THERE!!!!

 

I don't know, maybe because the graph is comparing the North Korea army to other armies of the asian continent, and put the US as a comparative indicator?

LMAO!

 

That's got to be a complete joke. How desperate can your nation be to where you need to force women into the Armed Forces, and you're not even in a time of war? It doesn't make any damn sense.

 

 

I don't know, maybe because the graph is comparing the North Korea army to other armies of the asian continent, and put the US as a comparative indicator?

To CK: That's what I'm talking about, how is it that we as a planet tolorate this disgusting treatment of human beings, don't get me wrong I understand everyone's previous posts.

To hystery: I don't see how Canada will be able to defeat NK, their army is too small for that.

 To hystery: I don't see how Canada will be able to defeat NK, their army is too small for that.

 

Hm, what? No, I'm not talking about Canada, this dude does, he asked why Canada wasn't there and I explained why. All the western forces are missing in the graph, like all the EU armies, and all that, but it's because the graph is a comparison between the armies of the asian continent, and the US army was used as a comparative indicator (since it's supposed to be the "most powerful country in the world").

Hm, what? No, I'm not talking about Canada, this dude does, he asked why Canada wasn't there and I explained why. All the western forces are missing in the graph, like all the EU armies, and all that, but it's because the graph is a comparison between the armies of the asian continent, and the US army was used as a comparative indicator (since it's supposed to be the "most powerful country in the world").

I wouldn't say the US is the most powerful country in the world as much as I'd say the most influential. The US is one of the more powerful countries, but there is no such thing as 'Most powerful country in the world". There's too much to measure in order for that title to be proclaimed to a single nation.

Actually a quick Google search shows that China as the largest standing military. North Korea isn't even remotely close to having the largest military in the world. Even if North Korea did have the largest standing military, they don't have the largest population. The United States for example, could easily overpower North Korea. The United States has almost 10x the population of North Korea. If the United States wanted to, it could easily outnumber North Korea 10 to 1.

 

Well, to be fairly exact, they have the highest percentage of active population serving in the army, as seen here:

 

 

And considering their outdated equipment, vehicles, tactics and all that, I believe a lot of smaller armies could kick their asses if it came to a one on one (as in, no other country involved than North Korea and the other one).

 

I wasn't sure what LCPDCheese was referring to, which he later clarified to be dealing with finances of a military. 

 

With that said, North Korea still remains the largest standing army in the world. 

 

Would the numbers change significantly if there was a major conflict or policy change? Of course. Would finances, equipment, training, positions, ect effect the outcome of a conflict? Of course. 

 

But speaking completely numerically, what is what I thought LCPDCheese was getting at, North Korea still stands as #1, and we all know why that is. 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

I wasn't sure what LCPDCheese was referring to, which he later clarified to be dealing with finances of a military.

With that said, North Korea still remains the largest standing army in the world.

Would the numbers change significantly if there was a major conflict or policy change? Of course. Would finances, equipment, training, positions, ect effect the outcome of a conflict? Of course.

But speaking completely numerically, what is what I thought LCPDCheese was getting at, North Korea still stands as #1, and we all know why that is.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

While I do understand your point, you seem to be basing your facts off of Wikipedia, which isn't necessarily a trusted source. It can't be considered an accurate source because if I really wanted to, I could say that Napoleon was born in 4000 and died in 19999 by cheese pooping infection. Unless you have anymore links other than Wikipedia, the statement that North Korea has the largest standing military is simply false. I have provided several links, can you provide more sources?

While I do understand your point, you seem to be basing your facts off of Wikipedia, which isn't necessarily a trusted source. It can't be considered an accurate source because if I really wanted to, I could say that Napoleon was born in 4000 and died in 19999 by cheese pooping infection. Unless you have anymore links other than Wikipedia, the statement that North Korea has the largest standing military is simply false. I have provided several links, can you provide more sources?

 

It can be edited, but the sources they cite cannot. If you click the small number next to the country, it shows where Wikipedia got the information from.

 

While I do understand your point, you seem to be basing your facts off of Wikipedia, which isn't necessarily a trusted source. It can't be considered an accurate source because if I really wanted to, I could say that Napoleon was born in 4000 and died in 19999 by cheese pooping infection. Unless you have anymore links other than Wikipedia, the statement that North Korea has the largest standing military is simply false. I have provided several links, can you provide more sources?

It can be edited, but the sources they cite cannot. If you click the small number next to the country, it shows where Wikipedia got the information from.

 

 

What Michael said, I trust Wikipedia. 

 

You could sort the data a different way, through non-combat personal, off-duty, active duty, ect. But from what I see, I trust their sources and data. 

 

It makes sense too, North Korea is one of the more militarized countries on the planet. 

I'am still skeptical on the idea, but I see what you're saying.

But speaking completely numerically, what is what I thought LCPDCheese was getting at, North Korea still stands as #1, and we all know why that is. 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

Nope. That chart counts reserve and paramilitary personnel, neither of which are considered part of a standing army. "Standing army" refers exclusively to full-time military personnel who will serve in times of peace as well as war (what the US calls "active duty"). Militias and paramilitaries do not qualify, and neither do reserves.

Now, if you choose to interpret "standing army" as referring exclusively to ground forces (the whole NK military is the KPA, as opposed to the US which has five branches), I think NK does edge out the US (the Army and Marines together have only around 750k, while the NK army has a bit over 900k); counting air forces, the numbers are around the same between the two (a bit under 1.1 million); counting navies, the US is several hundred thousand more than NK (and if we're counting air forces, you should probably count the US Navy's aviation personnel). The Chinese army's ground forces are around 1.6 million active personnel, which means that the PLA is the biggest standing army by any definition of "army." NK probably has a larger standing army than the US, but has a smaller standing military.

Nope. That chart counts reserve and paramilitary personnel, neither of which are considered part of a standing army. "Standing army" refers exclusively to full-time military personnel who will serve in times of peace as well as war (what the US calls "active duty"). Militias and paramilitaries do not qualify, and neither do reserves.

Now, if you choose to interpret "standing army" as referring exclusively to ground forces (the whole NK military is the KPA, as opposed to the US which has five branches), I think NK does edge out the US (the Army and Marines together have only around 750k, while the NK army has a bit over 900k); counting air forces, the numbers are around the same between the two (a bit under 1.1 million); counting navies, the US is several hundred thousand more than NK (and if we're counting air forces, you should probably count the US Navy's aviation personnel). The Chinese army's ground forces are around 1.6 million active personnel, which means that the PLA is the biggest standing army by any definition of "army." NK probably has a larger standing army than the US, but has a smaller standing military.

 

Thanks for clarifying this, I was using my terms incorrectly. 

 

Collectively, North Korea's Armed Forces including Military, Reserves, and Paramilitary is #1, numerically speaking.

 

A side note, I don't really know why the majority of their Armed Forces are paramilitary, seems a little odd to me. You'd think they'd just funnel everything into their Military. 

Thanks for clarifying this, I was using my terms incorrectly. 

 

Collectively, North Korea's Armed Forces including Military, Reserves, and Paramilitary is #1, numerically speaking.

 

A side note, I don't really know why the majority of their Armed Forces are paramilitary, seems a little odd to me. You'd think they'd just funnel everything into their Military.

Because "paramilitary" isn't really up to the standard of military, as a rule. Paramilitaries can range from full military-style training to just giving a rifle to everyone in the country in a certain age range and telling them "you're in the militia." Especially if they have around a quarter of the whole country in the paramilitary, I would be wary about considering it an effective fighting force.