# Is USA Bigger Than CHINA?!



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

USA is BIGGER?

1. Russia: 17,075,200 km2 (6,591,027 mi2)

2. Canada: 9,984,670 km2 (3,854,082 mi2)

3. United States: 9,631,418 km2 (3,717,727 mi2)

4. China: 9,596,960 km2 (3,704,426 mi2)

5. Brazil: 8,511,965 km2 (3,285,618 mi2)

6. Australia: 7,686,850 km2 (2,967,124 mi2)

China is bigger?

Area in miles Area in kilometers land area 


1. U.S.S.R. 8,650,000 22,400,000 14.9 

2. Canada 3,851,809 9,976,139 6.7 

3. China 3,691,500 9,560,900 6.4 

4. U.S. 3,615,122 9,363,123 6.4 

5. Brazil 3,286,488 8,512,004 5.7 

6. Australia 2,967,909 7,686,849 5.1 

China is BIGGER than USA and Canada?

LARGEST COUNTRIES BY LAND AREA ONLY (NO WATER!)

1) RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
16,995,800 sq km

2) PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
9,326,410 sq km

3) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
9,161,923 sq km

4) CANADA
land: 9,093,507 sq km

Overal:

Largest Countries by TOTAL AREA (WATER+LAND)

1) RUSSIAN FEDERATION

total: 17,075,200 sq km
land: 16,995,800 sq km
water: 79,400 sq km

2) CANADA

total: 9,984,670 sq km
land: 9,093,507 sq km
water: 891,163 sq km

3) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

total: 9,631,418 sq km
land: 9,161,923 sq km
water: 469,495 sq km
note: includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia
(THIS INCLUDES ALASKA AND HAWAII)

4) PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

total: 9,596,960 sq km
land: 9,326,410 sq km
water: 270,550 sq km

Conclusion

So you can see the idea that Canada is bigger than China and the US is based solely on the fact that it claims sovereignty over more WATER than land! The USA Is only bigger than China if you include Territorial Seas. (having more coastline means more territorial seas can be claimed)

source:http://dot.kde.org/1061298049/1061318367/1105675454/


----------



## GrigorisSokratis (Apr 6, 2005)

Hi, glad to hear it somewhat helped.

Now let's see, as for the Greece's land area it's 132,542 without counting the inner sea hydrographical areas (attention not territorial seas) like big parts of the Aegean, the Korinthiakos and Patraikos gulf and such, that is not the case of the Ionian territorial waters that are not counted of course in neither of the two measuring methods since they're not considered as "inner". Another discussion is the Ambrakikos Gulf, which is so inclosed that is sometimes considered as a lake (it actually has in half-sweet water and sometimes it becomes completelly sweet). That's why as far as the old method land area refers you will find numbers like the 70's 131,944 not including some gained territories to the sea increasing that number to 131,957 and finally 131,990, as for the 1,140 sq you mentioned they're just lakes and rivers, so when adding the Ambrakikos gulf (which is a lake as much as the Erie) the number with the old methods goes to 132,542. Witht he new method due to Greece's highly complex geography it goes up to 309,050.

Now as for Canada yes, with the old method it's 9,984,670 sq kms (including lakes and rivers fresh water areas) that's 891,163 km² (though it doesn't include some small disputed water territories, which as far as CIA worldfactbook are considered as American and added to the US land area, and off the record though biased from CIA's part I agree in that with the factbook, but that's another history related story, an issue we could discuss in other occasion). Now about the 1 million sq kms of inland marine waters of Canada I mentioned above in my previous post, they're actually around 1.23 million and it doesn't include the Beaufort Sea and Strait of Juan de Fuca which would put the new method land area a little higher, nonetheless with the new method Canada's land area goes up to the 11,224,300 sq kms (according to my bibliographical data), Huge eh?!.

As far as the CIA worldfactbook, I don't take it as a source of geographical and economical information as it's kind of biased depending on political and economical affairs with the country on issue. For example let's take the example of France (a country with mostly a compact geography unlike the countries mentioned above, something like Rommania but again with some Internal marine lands). In the CIA World fact book the land area of France is 547,030 and excludes estuaries and other inland marine areas which put with the new measuring method the area to 551,695 or 551,802 (if we add the territory gained to the sea, nothing if we compare the number with that accomplished by the dutch, but again that's another story). For some reason the guys of the factbook omitted adding that inland sea waters not to mention that it doesn't show even the total land area including metropolitan territories (which officially is always added), instead of that it leaves just a note about the later issue.

Same happens with Argentina a country with 2,791,810 (with the new method and of course excluding the disputted Falkland islands), while in the Factbook it appears with just 2,766,890 strange...or Uruguay from the real around 186,000 to 176,220 in the factbook, or Bulgaria from the real 111,001 is showed without the new method with just 110,910 and the list goes on and on.

On the other hand countries like the US (9,272,000 in the old method) in the CIA FB is showed with the new method (9,6 millions) or Chile from the old 754,000 and so it's showed with the new of 756,990 and again the list goes on and on.

Unfotunately most of the common websites aound the web (touristic sites, country guides, etc) Base their data on the, erroneous in some cases and not so much in other, data provided by the CIA FB. Nevertheless I look for precise data in a 99.9% basis so I cannot stand only in the FB and make my investigations throughout the web as well as text books in libraries or book stores. 

Also the FB has some erroneous based on older data information about mountain heights, while I found the precise in more specialized sites around the web about the subject, resulting in the same result, having common websites copying faithfully the data from the CIA FB.

Sometimes I considered the idea of writing them and pointing them out about the issue of their erroneus or older data in some fields mainly due to negligence, I guess, of some...lazy employees, but then I think it back again and I'm afraid I would make a long list recollecting all the data just for nothing because after days of work they will just ignore me and I cannot spend my scarce free time uselessly.

Anyway, again I hope all the above helped a little more.


----------



## SEG (Apr 2, 2006)

We have Alaska, Hawaii and Guam in Asia, so we have vast waters in the Pacific. We have more livable lands than China, so we have less apartments and more houses with large gardens than China.


----------



## Rachmaninov (Aug 5, 2004)

China is bigger if you count land only


----------



## O CHINA (Dec 5, 2005)

I wonder why neighboring small nations don't beg China for their lives.


----------



## Rachmaninov (Aug 5, 2004)

^^ Why would they need to?


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

'null': extremely useful posts... :weird: 





GrigorisSokratis: thank you very much again for your effort!

I'm still kept back about this method and that's for next 2 reasons:

1. We are (or were) most probably interested in just land area (so excluding all seas) because we can't live in water. Somehow we can be on it in a boat, ship... but we still aren't exactly able to live in it, so I guess that's why we don't (or didn't) count waters, not even those 'inner' seas you're referring to. It's true that we can't live in lakes either, but if they are completely surrounded with land, then I understand including them in the area of a country.

2. This one is connected with the first point: so, if I reject your idea of 'inner' seas since I can't really live in them, but you really wanna count water so much, then I can also include other territorial waters (seas), since they are legal parts of countries. *I do however understand what you're trying to say with these 'inner' seas, that they somehow form a concluded totality with land.* So, I wrote this second point just because we can't really live in water, and considering that in case we include 'inner' seas, we can then also include other territorial seas.

But then I'm thinking and *I give you right in a way*: if we were always including rivers (those which in the end pour out in seas, not lakes or perhaps evaporate) and they also count as water, then why not include 'inner' seas, considering that rivers aren't completely surrounded with land either. If we excluded rivers for not being completely surrounded with land, we should then also exclude lakes like the Russian Lake Baikal, which is somehow connected with (the Kara) sea by the Angara and later on by the Yenisei river. It would be very weird if we did that (exclude rivers and such lakes), but we're not excluding them, and that's just because rivers look so narrow compared to entire continents, besides they are usually long. If I now compare this with 'phenomena' like the Ambrakikos Gulf (it's in the western Greece, good 100 km south-east of the Kérkyra/KEPKYPA  (Corfu) Island, right?), we could really include it as well, since it's connected with (the rest of the) sea just by a narrow strait (many RIVERS are wider than that).

Canada: whoo, it's really huge with this method, but Canada's interested just in breaking the magic number of 10,000,000 sq km.  I understand exclusion of the Beaufort Sea from Canada's area, but I don't understand why excluding the Strait Of Juan de Fuca! ...or wait, you're saying that they should be included, just that they aren't included in those 1.23 million sq km? Ok, but now I don't understand why including the Beaufort Sea; it looks pretty 'outer' to me, except if you mean the inclusion of the Amundsen Gulf, which is kinda part of it (and perhaps some other also). Btw, I noticed there's a good 'presentation' of delimitation between countries and 'outer' seas here: http://www.map24.com/, most visible by Canada (and Alaska). And I think you missed out one of my questions: can the Hudson Bay be included? (this one's sooo huge)

As for Chile, does it really increase by just 2,990 sq km? Looks kinda little when I look at all that water in the southern part of it (south of Puerto Montt, all the way to the Cape Horn). Btw, CIA counts the new area as 756,950 sq km, of which 8,150 sq km is water, to be precise.

And I don't recommend you to start collecting data for CIA, it would take you weeks of hard work for nothing.  

I've got a question: if there was a country, totally surrounding the Mediterranean Sea (including the Black Sea and all other 'gulf' seas in the Mediterranean Sea), would this sea count in area of that country?

And one personal 'investigation' for me: do you have any idea, how much the area of Slovenia would increase by the new method, considering its small portion of the Adriatic Sea? I know that the Piran Bay on the border with Croatia isn't delimited yet, but let's count it as 90% Slovenian, 10% Croatian. :lol:


----------



## GrigorisSokratis (Apr 6, 2005)

Let's see. As for the Ambrakikos it's actually considered sometimes as a lake and some other not, depending on the investigator, there's something we call in Greece as Limno-Thalassa (Lake-Sea), btw its waters are not salt water but half fresh and sometimes when currents don't flow in, it becomes almost in a 100% lake. So sometimes it's added in the land area as a lake, it depends.

As for the possible Mare Nostrum of a second Roman empire, well if that was the case, I guess yes, but we'll never find that out.

As for the 1.23 millions of Canada they're mainly from the Hudson Bay indeed. As for the other areas like the Strait Of Juan de Fuca, they're not included in Canada but....in America as they're disputed inland marine waters by the US (something I agree with Washington for historic reasons).

Another point to keep on mind is the case of some of the great lakes, Huron, Erie, Michigan they're linke with the Ocean by the Saint Lawrence one of the widest rivers on earth, did you see that piece of river? it could be copnsidered as a gulf!! hehehe but easy, it's not it just looks like, but it isn't at all.

Finally I just realized you are from the beautiful Slovenia, a country that for some reason I cannot explain I'm very fond of and are eager to visit someday, maybe by car from here Greece take a visit to Croatia, Slovenia and Austria. I've been in Austria and I can imagine Slovenia being somewhat similar as far as the landscapes concerns to central and northern Greece, very beautiful indeed.

Nevertheless, I don't have info on the Piran bay but could make some investigation (though I'm sure you did it better than what can I achieve, but I'll make a try). Now I didn't know Slovenia had still areas to be delimited with Croatia, that is the two more progressive and peaceful nations in the ex Yugoslavia (sometimes it's hard to believe those two where part of a so complicated country politically, as both look as if they never had a communist regime).


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

^ 'Lake-Sea' - interesting expression, I don't think we have it in Slovenian and I also haven't heard of it in English yet (even if it's in fact called a little differently perhaps).

Yeah, the Saint Lawrence River really looks like a gulf.

Thank you for your remarks on Slovenia, and you're welcome here! Yes, the landscape is really similar to that of Austria. Hmm, I'm not sure if it looks similar to central and northern Greece, but it's very possible.

And thank you for your 'investigation' about Slovenia for me; well, that border with Croatia's really a pain in the ass... And yeah, I'm not sure what we were doing in Yugoslavia either.  

Thank you again for all the effort!


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

SEG said:


> We have more livable lands than China, so we have less apartments and more houses with large gardens than China.


I think that has more to do with you only having 25% of the population of China


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

So it depends on whether if you count Land and/or Water.

So it's your choice.


----------



## O CHINA (Dec 5, 2005)

You Americans don't know China's great history...

We had a larger land for a long time than we have now...

The great history comes around..


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

^ Very important for this thread...


Azn_chi_boi: yes, untill this method is used broader (if it will be in the end), it's your choice how to arrange the USA and PR China, I guess.


GrigorisSokratis: I just remembered something - we already can use the Mediterranean Sea in the area of 'something'; namely, if we're interested in the area of Eurasia and Africa counted TOGETHER (like as one continent, although it's not, of course), then we can include it.  

A remark: although the Caspian Sea is in fact lake, it's obviously not counted in the area of Azerbaijan (or at least not much of it; and probably other countries; and let's put behind the fact that it's not delimited yet), and I can understand that, because it would look very weird. But let's look in the history, when the Soviet Union still existed. I would also understand not including much of it in the area of Iran, but what about the USSR? Was the Caspian Sea counted in the area of it? I mean firstly, after all it's still a lake, and secondly, it was 'pretty much' surrounded with the USSR. Do you think it was counted at that time? Btw, it's very similar to the Neusiedler See (lake; just that this one's much smaller), with just a little portion of it in Hungary, but almost completely surrounded with Austria.

To conclude, I was pretty much familiar with all the areas, at least of important countries, but then GrigorisSokratis showed up and ruined everything.  :jk: I have to say I'm lost now! :nuts:  I don't even have a list of countries, measured by the new method. And I think they should still be shown by both methods (preserving the old one), because I'm still interested in land area. And btw, congratulations on 'increasing' the size of your country by 134%!!  :runaway: I know that's the main reason why you're doing it , but anyway, this can't be reason why I shouldn't believe you.


----------



## GrigorisSokratis (Apr 6, 2005)

Hi Verso.

First as for central and northern Greece, here you got an interesting thread showing some pictures depicting those less known parts of Greece.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=258371 

It's just that our tourist ministery puts all its strenght in promoting just our southern regions (Cyclades, Dodekanisa, some parts of the Peloponessus, the Aegean and parts of Crete), of central Greece only Athens is promoted thoroughly the rest of the country is almost neglected by the visitors as they just don't know it exists or at least don't know about its beauties.

As for the land areas, look nothing in this life is black or white and if you like Physics ask mr Heisenberg how he ruined the ideals of many precise-lovers scientists, again that's another story.

As for my country, no I'm not biased at all and from my other posts in the Geography section you can realize that I'm a geography passionate and I want to find the closer to precise numbers as possible for every country on earth. For instance France always been a big question to me as for its land area and the discrepancies from text to text, the same happens with America, not to mention the Germany's land area.

But geography is not that only I love studying the relief of each region on earth and find the real altitudes of each peak on earth (maybe that passion comes from my mountain climbing passion and as you know my country has lots of them hehe).

And much more, studying thoroughly geography makes you understand much better where you are standing on and somewhat feel like...at home whenever you travel to foreign lands, as you already know something, at least, of those places and if lost you have always a reference in your mind to look for, just my humble opinion.

Finally I think that everything is relative to the cultural, historic and political point of view of each country and now that I think it twice economical too. Take as an example the continents, another issue that makes me rise myriads of discussions with people according to their origins.

How many continents are there 5, 6, 7, 10?

Well the answer is relative to the country where you are studying about the subject. Take the Americas for example, in North America they say the Americas are actually two continents North America and South America (central is part of North America), something I agree with; while in Latin American countries they consider it as only one huge continent. You cannot imagine the great discussions I got with Latin American people I know, about this subject. Thus the number of continents is decreased to 6 from 7 and in some countries to 5 as they do not consider Antarctica as a continent :weird: 

The same happens with Europa and Asia some consider it as one supercontinent and other more Europeist and separatists as two well defined continents, weird if we consider their diffuse limits, a mountain range? a river?!?!?! are you kidding? hehheeh. I mean sometimes they Put Georgia in Europe and other times in Asia, that example shows how diffuse is that two continents nature of Europe and Asia. Culturally well yes but geographycally? no way. And if we put it in cultural ways, what if Indoeuropeans has spread all around Asia instead of Ural Altaic-Turkish-Finnish-Mongolic races, would we hava had only one continent?

As for me I take the 7 continents since it's the closer to reality, but if you want to know the real thing they're 10 as that is the number of tectonic plates and to make thinks a little more confussing did you know guys that Japan is half in the Asian plate and half in the North American? So people from Hokkaideans (the northern big island of Japan) could consioder yourselves as Northamericans as those born in Kansas, NY, Florida or California to mention random examples).

Now Verso sorry for going soooooooo off the topic but I leave you with this one more confussion :wave:


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

^ Ohh, so much writing again... :sleepy:  

Let's see: I've looked at photos of central and northern Greece in that thread and I must say it's quite similar to Slovenia as you said. The photos are really great, I wish this part of Greece was promoted better. Well, also your neighbours in the north (Turkey, Bulgaria, FYROM and Albania) aren't very rich to make them some big tourists.  (btw, I made a little remark in that thread  )

About Heisenberg: I'm not that much into physics.  

About the continents: yes, it IS a confusion, and yes, it IS an off-topic, but since you've already given me the most probable answer to my question about the areas of the US and PR China, it's really no problem. So, the continents... heh, well I can't accept the idea of the American continent either. It's just too obvious that North and South America are separate masses, separated with the Panama Canal. You probably already know that, but let me still say, how 'very well' the Americas are connected with each other: did you know that there's neither road nor railway connection between Colombia and Panama? :lol: And about the Antarctic... :hilarious And neither do I consider Europe a (real) continent, it's us, Europeans, being separatist and terrorist.  If we 'ruled' the entire Eurasia, it wouldn't even be called that way, but Europe.  

Anyway, Grigoris, thank you again for all your extensive and useful answers! Greeting :wave:


----------



## Comanche (May 18, 2006)

O CHINA said:


> You Americans don't know China's great history...
> 
> We had a larger land for a long time than we have now...
> 
> The great history comes around..


uhh.. China is so great -NOT! What kind of little geek are you?

I'm getting sick of all those nationalists in this SSC.


----------



## feverwin (Feb 25, 2006)

Comanche said:


> uhh.. China is so great -NOT! What kind of little geek are you?
> 
> I'm getting sick of all those nationalists in this SSC.



Don't be too serious. Every country has such kinda fool, just don't pay attention ! Besides we don't know whether he is really a Chinese depending on this post numbers...Just a trouble maker...


----------



## feverwin (Feb 25, 2006)

China has too many nations around her, so it's really not a easy job for her to keep her territory(even though has lost a lot in the past 200 years... )

America, Canada and Australia are new lands, mixed nations, not the same situation with China...


----------



## kashyap3 (Jul 11, 2006)

wow what an obvious question
YES
in terms of area and population


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

^ Especially population, eh? Where did u lose 1 billion folks?


----------

