The United States versus the People’s Republic of China — Who is more AGGRESSIVE?

Here’s an “AGGRESSION” comparison between People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the United States (USA). To keep score, I will only count casualties (those killed on both sides—the wounded and cost of the wars will not be counted).  The most aggressive nation will have the highest score.

First Tibet (1950): Technically Tibet was an independent country from 1911-12 to 1950—thirty-eight years.

Before that, Tibet was ruled over by China starting with the Yuan Dynasty (1277-1367) ), Ming Dynasty (1368-1643) and Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) —five-hundred-forty-three years.

To read about this from a reputable Western source (because few in the West trust PRC sources), I suggest the October 1912 issue of The National Geographic Magazine.  There’s a piece in the magazine written by a Western trained, Qing-Dynasty doctor that the Chinese emperor sent to Tibet in 1907 for two years. His name was Shaoching H. Chuan, M.D. ( I have an original copy of this almost 100-year-old magazine).

When the Chinese Communist Party won the Civil War against Chiang Kai-shek’s KMT Party, in 1950, Mao sent the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to take Tibet back. For a comparison, when the United States declared its independence from the British Empire, the revolution lasted from 1776 to 1783—seven years.

Casualties and losses comparing the America’s Revolution with the British Empire to Tibet’s Revolution with China

Total American causalities 25,000 dead
America’s allies: The French and Spanish lost about 8,000 in Europe and America

The British lost about 20,000.

In comparison to America’s Revolution that cost 53,000 lives over seven years, in 1950 after the PLA reoccupied Tibet, the war was over in a matter of days/weeks.

The Tibetan government in exile exaggerated the number killed in Tibet at 1.2 million and has accused China of genocide.

However, Michael Parenti wrote this in his book Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth: “The official 1953 census–six years before the Chinese crackdown–recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000. Other census counts put the population within Tibet at about two million.”


In addition, China puts the actual combat losses at 114 PLA soldiers and 180 Tibetan troops, while a Western source, Thomas Laird, claims 5,000 (for the comparison, I will use Laird’s number) Tibetan troops were killed.

“Tibetan prisoners of war were generally well treated. After confiscating their weapons, the PLA soldiers gave the prisoners lectures on socialism and a small amount of money, before allowing them to return to their homes. According to Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, the PLA did not attack civilians.


Note: In 1949, the average life expectancy in years in Tibet was 35 years.  Today it is close to 70 years. The average life expectancy in a nation may indicate the quality of life.

Korean Conflict (June 1950 – July 1953) – this war never resolved. Technically, America and South Korea are still at war with North Korea.

America and its allies lost 776,360 troops (America’s share of those losses was about 40,000 dead)

China and its allies lost 1,545,822–1,648,582 (easily twice the other side)

America’s Vietnam War (1955 – 1975) – It has been proven that America’s President L. B. Johnson started this war with a lie—watch the video.

America and its allies lost 676,585 – 1,035,585 (America’s share 58,220 dead)

North Vietnam and its allies–the PRC and the USSR lost 588,462 – 1,672,462

Civilians = 486,000 – 1,200,000.

China’s Vietnam War (1979) Note: China occupied and ruled over Vietnam for 1,000 years

“The first major threat to Vietnam’s existence as a separate people and nation was the conquest of the Red River Delta by the Chinese, under the mighty Han dynasty (206 B.C.-A.D. 220), in the first century B.C. At that time, and in later centuries, the expanding Chinese empire assimilated a number of small bordering nations politically and culturally. Although Vietnam spent 1,000 years under Chinese rule, it succeeded in throwing off the yoke of its powerful neighbor in the tenth century.”


China’s casualties = 6,954 – 26,000 (depending on who you believe)

Vietnam’s casualties = 10,000 to 30,000 (depending on who you believe)

China’s War with India (1962 for about two months)

Note: China has clearly been successful in resolving border disputes with most of its neighbours in a ‘win-win’ situation since the 1990s.

However, India has had border wars with three of its neighbors: China, Pakistan and Nepal. In comparison, China has negotiated border disputes peacefully with North Korea, Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Burma/Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam.


India’s casualties = 1,383

China’s casualties = 722

America’s War in Iraq (March 2004 – December 2011)

America and its allies:

Iraq Security Forces = 16,623 dead

Coalition Forces (America and its allies) = 4,805

Contractors = 1,554

Awakening Councils = 1,002 or more

Documented civilian deaths from violence = 103,160 – 113,729.

America’s enemies:

Iraqi combatants during the gulf war = 7,600 – 11,000

Insurgents killed = 21,221 – 26,405

America’s War in Afghanistan (2001 – present)

America and its allies: 14,446+

No way to reliable estimate how many Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc have lost.

Civilians killed : 12,500 – 14,700


Final Score: (Note: In most cases, the low estimate was used—the only exception being Tibet versus China)

The United States = 2.7 million deaths (the low estimate) and forty-eight years of war

The People’s Republic of China = 1.6 million and about three years of war. (about 1.5 million of those killed were in Korea)

Some more facts to help measure AGGRESSION – nuclear warheads

The USA = 8,500
The PRC = 240

Private industry weapon sales to the world:

USA = 30% of all global weapons sales—isn’t capitalism great?
PRC = about 5% of the global weapons sales

Note: The world’s biggest weapons suppliers are the USA, the UK, Russia, Germany and France.  China doesn’t even make the top-five.


Who won the AGGRESSION contest between the USA and PRC? — YOU DECIDE

Discover The Tiananmen Square Hoax


Lloyd Lofthouse is the award-winning author of The Concubine Saga. When you love a Chinese woman, you marry her family and culture too. This is the love story Sir Robert Hart did not want the world to discover.

Subscribe to “iLook China”!
Sign up for an E-mail Subscription at the top of this page, or click on the “Following” tab in the WordPress toolbar at the top of the screen.

About iLook China

16 Responses to The United States versus the People’s Republic of China — Who is more AGGRESSIVE?

  1. Robin says:

    I don’t know where you’re getting your information. The United States police’s the world and stops wars. We are the world’s hero, saint.

    • Click on the links to find the sources where I researched the information or read history—read lots of it. The U.S. has a very bloody history and few of those wars were started unless it helps boost profits for business (read that giant, international corporations) or made the country larger. After World War II, the US inherited the mantel of empire from the British who once ruled more of the world’s surface than any in history and fought many bloody wars to hold on to that huge empire where the sun was shinning on a part of the British Empire all the time it was so huge.

  2. […] Discover The United States versus the People’s Republic of China — Who is more AGGRESSIVE? […]

  3. Roundys says:

    I re-post the link for the Oxford studies here because I just found the article in full, not just the abstract.

    • Thank you. I copied and pasted the abstract from the Oxford study and it seems to match what Robert Hart wrote in his letters about Tibet:

      “Claims that Tibet was independent during the Qing Dynasty (1644–1911) or had “de facto independence” from the Republic of China (1911–1949) are belied by fact and law. Tibet’s elites regarded themselves as subjects of the Emperor, who saw himself and was seen by foreigners as the ruler of China, including Tibet. Supposed indicia of Tibet independence from 1913–1951 (a flag, stamps, currency, passports, visas, etc.) do not attest to statehood: many parts of China then and provinces or autonomous areas of countries today have had these features. No matter which international law theory of the recognition of States is used, Tibet was not one, but was a pseudo-State, like present-day Abkhazia or Somaliland. Tibet today thus has acquired no “right to independence”; yet, sections of Indian and US political elites continue to regard the claim of Tibet’s statehood as a useful lever in conflicts with China.”

  4. Roundys says:

    Hi Lloyd, you said that technically Tibet was an independent country from 1911-12 to 1950—thirty-eight years. An academic has a different take on this.

    • Thank you. I haven’t seen this source before. I stand corrected.

      However, I have read that the reason Tibet separated from China in 1911-12 was because the British, breaking the treaty the British Empire signed with China over Burma in the late 19th century where the British agreed to stay out of Tibet and not meddle with its affairs because Tibet was (as the treaty said) ruled by China, convinced the Dalai Lama to declare its freedom from China while China was in turmoil and form a nation due to the British Empire’s struggles with Russia early in the 20th century before the Communist Revolution that swept aside the Czar.

      I wonder if the British Empire recognized Tibet as a sovereign country after the Dalai Lama did as he was urged (maybe pressure or bribed) by the British in 1911-12. Actually, the British did invade Tibet early in the 20th century or late 19th century (I do not recall the exact date) and reached Lasa with a force of several thousand troops that marched from India. China demanded that the British remove their forces and was ready to send a Qing army into Tibet if needed but the British left. Robert Hart writes about all this in his letters that Harvard University Press published.

      • Roundys says:

        From my understanding, no country has ever recognized Tibet as a sovereign country, including Britain. But Britain stand among other countries that while it did not recognize Tibet as independent, it did not recognize China’s sovereignty over Tibet either. Instead it recognized China’s suzerainty over Tibet. I am not a lawyer of international affairs but I guess this means something that is less of sovereignty. However at the end of 2008, Britain reverse its position and recognize China’s sovereignty over Tibet.

      • Thanks. I suspect that “suzerainty” was the langauge used in that 19th century Burma treaty. The Chinese may not have understood its exact meaning.

        In a letter Sir Robert Hart wrote October 3, 1885 [rcd. November 25, 1885] to his agent in London, he mentions that an official from the British Foreign Office was on a mission to China for the Bengal government in India seeking trade with Tibet. The letter continues saying that China did not want Tibet exposed to Western trade and influence, nor did she want Indian competition with her tea monopoly there. The British agent was successful but the agreement was cancelled as a result of the Burma-Tibet Convention where China agreed to let Britain rule in Burma as she saw fit, and Britain further agreed not to press for the opening up of Tibet.

        Another letter sent on December 6, 1903, mentions the British military expedition marching to Lhassa and how Hart is sending a telegram urging the Amban (the political governors of Tibet appointed by China’s Emperor) to get proper Tibetan officials appointed to go with him to negotiate with the British (Hart is attempting to avert another war between the British Empire and China). Hart writes, “China will be a bit uneasy and we ossibly may have troublous times to pass through.”

        About fifty of the thousands of letters Hart wrote to his agent during his decades in China (published by Harvard University Press) mention Tibet. In one letter, which I haven’t found yet as I dig through the index, calls Tibet a troublesome tributary that needs to learn a lesson (not exactly his word but the meaning was clear).

        Hart’s letters reveal the crumbling power of the Qing Dynasty in its last years and how it is losing control of the vast empire.

    • Roundys,

      Thank you. I know. I researched the blood spilled along that border and wrote a post about it on this Blog. Thousands have been shot by Indian security forces attempting to cross that border while if one person is documented being killed crossing into or out of China illegally that event will be splashed across the front pages of almost major media source in the Western World accusing China of being a monster. However, the thousand of civilians (some children) that are executed attempting to cross the border in or out of Bangladesh is often ignored and few know about it in the West.

      Here’s a link to that post:

  5. hyperspacer says:

    By the way, since you bring up this subject, India also has one of the world’s bloodiest border, with Bangladesh.

  6. Roundys says:

    Hi Lloyd,

    I want to point out that even though China has settled peacefully 12 of its 14 borders with its contiguous neighbors, China has not settled its boundary with Bhutan, mainly because of India’s sensitivities to these issue. China only established diplomatic ties with Bhutan a few months ago and the border talks is on the agenda. Bhutan are treaty bound to have its foreign policy guided by India and this is the reason Bhutan has no diplomatic relations with China until a few months ago.

Comments are welcome — pro or con. However, comments must focus on the topic of the post, be civil and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: