China’s Military Spending to Double by 2015

Mr T said:

That's nonsense. Armed forces aren't prepared based on the size of a country's population or land mass. If that doctrine is followed, Canada is woefully under defended and Singapore has a suspiciously large military (maybe it's plotting to attack its neighbours!)

You have to look at your neighbours. China is surrounded by countries that are poor and/or have unthreatening militaries. Mongolia isn't going to invade like Genghis Khan did. Nor do I see Kazakstan, Nepal, Burma or any of the other SE Asian states to be a threat. Russia has no designs on Chinese territory. Even India isn't going to start a war with China.

And even if I agreed with you, that would require a very, very large army. Yet China is cutting back on troop numbers to spend on aircraft and a navy. That would suggest that the Chinese government itself is not worried by its land mass or population when it comes to defence.

Click to expand...

How about Russia, which shares long long border with China and historically has had a rough time with China. Even nowadays, the said border is still one of the most heavily depended in the world. And historically, Russia has always been a threat to China.

Additionally, I don't see why my original argument is nonsense. As soldier/population ratio is one of the parameters nations look at when talking about national defense. Just because countries like Canada is under-defended and Singapore is over-defended, it does not mean China has to do the same. There is nothing wrong with having a national defense that matches your territory and population. And it makes perfect sense to consider the size of the country when talking about national defense. If you have a large land mass, it's only natural for you to have a large defense budget as you'll need more personel and more equipment to defend. If you have a large population, you'll need a larger military to defend the national interest as well. Don't forget that the military is responsible for protecting the nation against all threats, foreign AND domestic. When you have a large population, there would be a bigger possibility for civil unrest. You'll need more resources to protect the nation.

Also, China is NOT surrounded by poor and/or unthreatened militaries. To its east, the famous 4 little dragons of Asia cannot be considered as poor. To its South, countries like Lao and Cambodia are extremely unstable with all the drug lords with their militaries. To its West, it is almost next door to the Middle East. I don't think I have to say anything about the danger involved there since we talk about it every single day. And to its north, it has Russia. None of these can be considered either as poor or unthreatened. Also, an article published by the Pentagon mentioned that, within a span of 100 years between mid 1800's and mid 1900's, China has been attacked 147 times from various foreign navies on the ocean. I don't know about you, but I call that a serious threat.

Yes, none the nations I mentioned has no desire for China now. Japan also had no desire for China in the early 1800's when China was still strong. And none of the Western nations had any desire for China in the early 1800's. However, things changed when China became weak. China suddenly became an attractive target when it become weak. Everyone wants to have a bite. That's what happened between 1840-1945. Lesson learned? You have to be strong to maintain peace. When you become weak, the only thing you can do is to beg and begging is not a good way of maintaining peace. We have to learn from history. If we don't, history will repeat itself. So if China doesn't shore up its defense, it will soon become an attractive target again. People from close and afar will come and try to get a bite. So looking at China's neighbors won't do any good. When you are weak, predators from very far can smell it. Just like in the late 1800's, none of the countries occupying China at the time was China's neighbors. They came from as far as the other side of the planet.

plawolf said:

Could it possibly be that that is because China's chief external threats are sea-based?

Click to expand...

I was responding to vesicles' claim that China needs a lot of military spending because of the size of its land mass and population.

I guess South Korea, Japan and America are all "poor and/or have unthreatening militaries".

Click to expand...

South Korea and Japan are certainly no threat to China where one is talking about sea lanes or anything else, unless China were to attack. South Korea is primarily concerned with North Korea. And although Japan is concerned about China in some respects, there is no logical situation I can think of where Japan would attack first.

The US obviously has a strong military, but again the idea that it would start a war with China is ridiculous. China would have to first attack one of its allies to draw the US in. So if China doesn't go declaring war around Asia it should have nothing to worry about.

It's funny that when you talk so fondly of encircling China, or a possible Taiwan war, you love to play up how all those US allies are powerful military powers in their own right

Click to expand...

Huh, when have I talked fondly of encircling China? Quotes, please!

vesicles said:

And historically, Russia has always been a threat to China.

Click to expand...

What would Russia have to gain from going to war with China today? Nothing. It has also been one of China's best suppliers of military hardware. Why would a country with designs on China help arm it? It wouldn't.

As soldier/population ratio is one of the parameters nations look at when talking about national defense.

Click to expand...

According to whom?

When you have a large population, there would be a bigger possibility for civil unrest.

Click to expand...

Then you invest in the police, not the army. Soldiers are not suitable to dealing with civil unrest, unless you see shooting protesters as an appropriate response.

Yes, none the nations I mentioned has no desire for China now. Japan also had no desire for China in the early 1800's when China was still strong.

Click to expand...

No, Japan had no interest in China when Japan was still a closed nation and inward looking. It had nothing to do with China's strength.

China will be able to tell if a country was arming in preparation for war because their defence budgets would suddenly grow at a quick pace. Until that happens it's counter-productive to build up your armed forces in the belief that one day you might be attacked by a number of your neighbours. First, it's a waste of money and means you can't spend it on social projects, etc. Second, it can help invite conflict by encouraging your neighbours to increase their own spending and make the whole region even more heavily armed.

That is not to say that China should disarm. It's perfectly justified to have armed forces to deal with unforeseen events. But those events are things that happen quickly. Countries can't arm at the push of a button. It takes many years for that to happen, and it would become obvious to China is Japan or South Korea (or anyone else) was doing that.

Mr T said:

What would Russia have to gain from going to war with China today? Nothing. It has also been one of China's best suppliers of military hardware. Why would a country with designs on China help arm it? It wouldn't.

Click to expand...

In the 1950's, China and the Soviets were the best of buddies. However, they fought battles and were on the verge of all out war in the 60's. China completely went to the other side in the 70's. And then they went back to each other again in the 90's and ever since because of mutual benefit of national defense cooperation. Who knows what will happen 10 years from now. What happens NOW has nothing to do with what will happen in the future. The best thing to do is to be always prepared.

Mr T said:

Then you invest in the police, not the army. Soldiers are not suitable to dealing with civil unrest, unless you see shooting protesters as an appropriate response.

Click to expand...

I don't think police can deal with large scale civil unrest. It is the job of the military. It's that way in China and every other country on this planet.

Mr T said:

No, Japan had no interest in China when Japan was still a closed nation and inward looking. It had nothing to do with China's strength.

Click to expand...

It's a two-way street. The aggressor getting stronger and the invaded getting weak both contribute to the final out come of a war. I can't believe you said "it had nothing to do with China's strength". This statement is simply, to quote your saying, nonsense. Are you saying that Japan would still invade China if China's military was comparable to that of Nazi Germany at the time??? Nonsense!!!

Mr T said:

China will be able to tell if a country was arming in preparation for war because their defence budgets would suddenly grow at a quick pace. Until that happens it's counter-productive to build up your armed forces in the belief that one day you might be attacked by a number of your neighbours. First, it's a waste of money and means you can't spend it on social projects, etc. Second, it can help invite conflict by encouraging your neighbours to increase their own spending and make the whole region even more heavily armed.

Click to expand...

Once again, I can't believe anyone can have this kind of logic in this day and age. Only begin to build up your military when you find out someone is thinking about invading??? What kind of logic is that anyway? In your logic, the ants were simply dumb for working hard and saving all the grains for the winter and the grasshopper was doing the right thing by being a procrastinator. So if you are the grasshopper, you would only start collecting grains when the winter comes?? That's just dumb!

It took China 30 years of aggressive military build-up to get to where they are today. It would be wayyyy too late for China to start their military build-up only AFTER they find out about an ill intent from another nation who might be decades ahead of China to begin with and has been preparing for the eventual invasion in secret for a long time.

Plus, being strong will undoubtedly discourage many from having any ill intent and prevent war in the first place.

Military is a political tool and has many uses other than on the battlefield. I don;t think I need to discuss too much in detail about the benefit of having a strong military.

China needs to invest in social projects. No doubt about that. But having a strong military should not be ignored. Why? without an elite military, whatever you develop and work for will be lost. China experienced this not long ago when the occupation forces took gold, silver and treasures from China by the boat loads. Whatever that has been saved by China for so long was all lost. So developing economy without military build-up is equivalent to making yourself a piece of pork placed on a cutting board. waiting to be cut up with no way of defending yourself.

Mr T said:

According to whom?

Click to expand...

As you can see, population and number of troops is a parameter people look at.

Further, there is actually an acronym for this: the annual military participation ratio (MPR)-the percentage of the total resident population
serving in the active-duty military (Stanislav Andreski, Military Organization and Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968). It is one of the important things that policy makers look at. If you want to know more about it, google "soldier/population ratio" and first one "America's Military Population - DEOMI" will tell you more about it. I don't want to attach it because it is a PDF.

vesicles said:

In the 1950's, China and the Soviets were the best of buddies. However, they fought battles and were on the verge of all out war in the 60's. China completely went to the other side in the 70's. And then they went back to each other again in the 90's and ever since because of mutual benefit of national defense cooperation. Who knows what will happen 10 years from now. What happens NOW has nothing to do with what will happen in the future. The best thing to do is to be always prepared.



I don't think police can deal with large scale civil unrest. It is the job of the military. It's that way in China and every other country on this planet.



It's a two-way street. The aggressor getting stronger and the invaded getting weak both contribute to the final out come of a war. I can't believe you said "it had nothing to do with China's strength". This statement is simply, to quote your saying, nonsense. Are you saying that Japan would still invade China if China's military was comparable to that of Nazi Germany at the time??? Nonsense!!!



Once again, I can't believe anyone can have this kind of logic in this day and age. Only begin to build up your military when you find out someone is thinking about invading??? What kind of logic is that anyway? In your logic, the ants were simply dumb for working hard and saving all the grains for the winter and the grasshopper was doing the right thing by being a procrastinator. So if you are the grasshopper, you would only start collecting grains when the winter comes?? That's just dumb!

It took China 30 years of aggressive military build-up to get to where they are today. It would be wayyyy too late for China to start their military build-up only AFTER they find out about an ill intent from another nation who might be decades ahead of China to begin with and has been preparing for the eventual invasion in secret for a long time.

Plus, being strong will undoubtedly discourage many from having any ill intent and prevent war in the first place.

Military is a political tool and has many uses other than on the battlefield. I don;t think I need to discuss too much in detail about the benefit of having a strong military.

China needs to invest in social projects. No doubt about that. But having a strong military should not be ignored. Why? without an elite military, whatever you develop and work for will be lost. China experienced this not long ago when the occupation forces took gold, silver and treasures from China by the boat loads. Whatever that has been saved by China for so long was all lost. So developing economy without military build-up is equivalent to making yourself a piece of pork placed on a cutting board. waiting to be cut up with no way of defending yourself.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As you can see, population and number of troops is a parameter people look at.

Further, there is actually an acronym for this: the annual military participation ratio (MPR)-the percentage of the total resident population
serving in the active-duty military (Stanislav Andreski, Military Organization and Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968). It is one of the important things that policy makers look at. If you want to know more about it, google "soldier/population ratio" and first one "America's Military Population - DEOMI" will tell you more about it. I don't want to attach it because it is a PDF.

Click to expand...

My friend, next time you meet someone who needs education, you can tell them to google up "security dilemma" and "defensive realism". It's TOO laughable how sometimes some people can ask questions without first double-checking their logic.

Mr T said:

I was responding to vesicles' claim that China needs a lot of military spending because of the size of its land mass and population.



South Korea and Japan are certainly no threat to China where one is talking about sea lanes or anything else, unless China were to attack. South Korea is primarily concerned with North Korea. And although Japan is concerned about China in some respects, there is no logical situation I can think of where Japan would attack first.

The US obviously has a strong military, but again the idea that it would start a war with China is ridiculous. China would have to first attack one of its allies to draw the US in. So if China doesn't go declaring war around Asia it should have nothing to worry about.



Huh, when have I talked fondly of encircling China? Quotes, please!



What would Russia have to gain from going to war with China today? Nothing. It has also been one of China's best suppliers of military hardware. Why would a country with designs on China help arm it? It wouldn't.



According to whom?



Then you invest in the police, not the army. Soldiers are not suitable to dealing with civil unrest, unless you see shooting protesters as an appropriate response.



No, Japan had no interest in China when Japan was still a closed nation and inward looking. It had nothing to do with China's strength.

China will be able to tell if a country was arming in preparation for war because their defence budgets would suddenly grow at a quick pace. Until that happens it's counter-productive to build up your armed forces in the belief that one day you might be attacked by a number of your neighbours. First, it's a waste of money and means you can't spend it on social projects, etc. Second, it can help invite conflict by encouraging your neighbours to increase their own spending and make the whole region even more heavily armed.

That is not to say that China should disarm. It's perfectly justified to have armed forces to deal with unforeseen events. But those events are things that happen quickly. Countries can't arm at the push of a button. It takes many years for that to happen, and it would become obvious to China is Japan or South Korea (or anyone else) was doing that.

Click to expand...

***********

antiterror13 i suggest you remove your post before a mod see it.

Mr T said:

I was responding to vesicles' claim that China needs a lot of military spending because of the size of its land mass and population.

Click to expand...

So China doesn't need to protect it's territory and population from sea based threats and only land based ones?

South Korea and Japan are certainly no threat to China where one is talking about sea lanes or anything else, unless China were to attack. South Korea is primarily concerned with North Korea. And although Japan is concerned about China in some respects, there is no logical situation I can think of where Japan would attack first.

The US obviously has a strong military, but again the idea that it would start a war with China is ridiculous. China would have to first attack one of its allies to draw the US in. So if China doesn't go declaring war around Asia it should have nothing to worry about.

Click to expand...

So, South Korea and Japan are no threat to China because you cannot think of why they would attack China. But China is a threat to South Korea, Japan and America, even though you cannot think of why China would want to attack any of them? Real reasonable.

Also, when was the last time China went and attacked another country?

If we are going with the 'we need a strong military in case someone attacks one of our buddies/allies', then surely China (and everyone else) should have far more reason to arm up to American levels, since the country who has been doing the overwhelming majority of the world's attacks on other nations has been America and friends.

North Korea and Pakistan are Chinese allies, and America can hardly provide assurances that it has no hostile intent towards either now can it?

China will be able to tell if a country was arming in preparation for war because their defence budgets would suddenly grow at a quick pace. Until that happens it's counter-productive to build up your armed forces in the belief that one day you might be attacked by a number of your neighbours. First, it's a waste of money and means you can't spend it on social projects, etc. Second, it can help invite conflict by encouraging your neighbours to increase their own spending and make the whole region even more heavily armed.

Click to expand...

That's totally the wrong model to use, as your model requires that all sides have similar military forces to start with, and are of a similar size to start with.

China has been massively underspending on it's military for decades, no both a percentage of GDP and total dollar terms.

But just because China has underspent in the past is no reason to insist that China should always underspend.

For all the talk of scaremongers about Chinese defense spending increases, as a percentage of GDP, China's defense spending is still behind even medium ranking powers like Britain and France, never mind America.

All China is doing is correcting a historical anomaly and spending what a country of it's size and status should be spending on defense as it grows rich enough to do so. If Japan or South Korea feel threatened by that because they suddenly no longer enjoy a military superiority over their vastly bigger, more populous and now richer neighbour, well, frankly, that's their problem, not China's.

The Chinese have a very simple, yet incredibly fair way of assessing things. Just imagine yourself in the other person's shoes. I am sure the west has a similar line of thought.

Just reverse the position of China with that of America, South Korea or Japan, and if the situation is unacceptable to any of them if they were in China's position, how in the hell do you reckon the current situation should be acceptable to China now that China should not try and improve their own defensive capabilities when it is well within their means and capabilities to do so?

If you applied that 'in their shoes' model, the only remarkable question you will have is not 'why are the arming up so fast', but rather 'why are they not arming up any faster?'.

To suggest that it is "counter-productive to build up your armed forces in the belief that one day you might be attacked by a number of your neighbours" is one of the most ridiculous statements I have read in a good while.

Why the hell else does anyone spend the money building up and maintaining a military other than to guard against the day someone decides to take something of yours that they like by force?

Oh, I forgot, you are from the UK, who has a military so it can act as loyal wardog for America when they go off to invade some hapless country or another...

HKSDU said:

antiterror13 i suggest you remove your post before a mod see it.

Click to expand...

Thanks done

Can't China afford to increase its relatively small budget to update its obsolete arsenal? For all intended purposes, it's her own money, so her own business.

At least she isn't borrowing money from other countries like half of NATO nations do in an irresponsibly manner.

plawolf said:

So China doesn't need to protect it's territory and population from sea based threats and only land based ones?

Click to expand...

Population and land mass have no bearing on what size navy that China needs. Coastline might do, but China's coastline is far smaller than the size of its land borders. And I'm sure that you'll discount the idea that China is ever likely to be invaded by sea. So the role of the navy is more down to things like securing sea lanes - which facts like population and land mass don't influence.

So, South Korea and Japan are no threat to China because you cannot think of why they would attack China. But China is a threat to South Korea, Japan and America, even though you cannot think of why China would want to attack any of them?

Click to expand...

I don't recall saying that China is going to attack any of those countries. I said that the only reason a conflict would start would be because China would start it.

Also, when was the last time China went and attacked another country?

Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by "attack". Sure, the US has been involved in conflicts. But do you really think the US would attack China if China was minding its own business? And when was the last time South Korea or Japan "attacked" anyone?

If we are going with the 'we need a strong military in case someone attacks one of our buddies/allies', then surely China (and everyone else) should have far more reason to arm up to American levels, since the country who has been doing the overwhelming majority of the world's attacks on other nations has been America and friends.

Click to expand...

First, the US' military is not pointed at China. It's positioned to deal with problems pretty much all over the world. China wouldn't need nearly as much spending as the US to match it (even assuming that the US was a big baddy) because its forces are concentrated in and near China.

Second, again what do you mean by "attack" and what's the reason the conflict starts? For example, does the Gulf War count? The US and its allies attacked Iraq. Sure Saddam had invaded Kuwait, but he hadn't attacked the US. Then there's Kosovo. Serbia hadn't attacked NATO, so maybe NATO should have left it alone. I mean, who cares about Kosovans? If Serbia wants to murder them that's its business, right? Same for Libya. If Gaddafi had wanted to burn Cyrenaica, that was his call.

There are conflicts sponsored by the US that are much less (or not) justifiable, but the US doesn't get involved in wars for no reason. It isn't going to attack China because it thinks China is a currency manipulator or because China's on the way to becoming the world's number one economy.

North Korea and Pakistan are Chinese allies, and America can hardly provide assurances that it has no hostile intent towards either now can it?

Click to expand...

Pakistan is also a US ally, though the two countries have a troubled relationship. The only reason the US would attack it would be if an extremist government took over and was threatening nuclear war and global jihad. In which case I doubt China would want to protect Pakistan. As for North Korea, are you serious? If China wants to tie itself to a psychotic outfit that keeps threatening to nuke everyone then that's its own fault. But we know that North Korea has nuclear weapons, so there's no threat of force being used to disarm it at the moment. War would only come about if North Korea was about to launch an attack or had already done so. As with Pakistan, I doubt very much that China would protect its neighbour if it was the aggressor.

But just because China has underspent in the past is no reason to insist that China should always underspend.

Click to expand...

Sorry, where did I say anything long those lines.

Seriously, are you feeling ok? You keep making rebuttals to opinions I've never expressed.

For all the talk of scaremongers about Chinese defense spending increases, as a percentage of GDP, China's defense spending is still behind even medium ranking powers like Britain and France, never mind America.

Click to expand...

Eh, what? China is in Asia. Britain and France are in Europe. What do they have to do with China's defence spending?

All China is doing is correcting a historical anomaly and spending what a country of it's size and status should be spending on defense as it grows rich enough to do so.

Click to expand...

So you're saying this is in part about penis envy?

If Japan or South Korea feel threatened by that because they suddenly no longer enjoy a military superiority over their vastly bigger, more populous and now richer neighbour, well, frankly, that's their problem, not China's.

Click to expand...

So China would have no problem at all if Japan and South Korea vastly increased their own defence spending?

Just reverse the position of China with that of America, South Korea or Japan, and if the situation is unacceptable to any of them if they were in China's position, how in the hell do you reckon the current situation should be acceptable to China now that China should not try and improve their own defensive capabilities when it is well within their means and capabilities to do so?

Click to expand...

China can upgrade its armed forces if it wants to. But it doesn't have to be done very rapidly. China faces no obvious military threat from its neighbours, who either have weak militaries or no interest in starting a conflict with China.