If we believe the official numbers then I think China spends a little less than 1.2% on the armed forces.
And if the official #s are true then its quite ridiculous.
China Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear Arms Thread
- Thread starter peace_lover
- Start date
- Status
If we believe the official numbers then I think China spends a little less than 1.2% on the armed forces.
And if the official #s are true then its quite ridiculous.
bajingan
Senior Member
Even "supapowah" india spends 2.4% of gdp on defence
You don't look sorry at all for insulting members here. Look at what you just wrote!
Don't bother replying. Because we have seen your true face. You have nothing to backup your arguments other than speculation, hot air, insults, and quoting from phony sources. Just shut up already. The way you reply shows everyone here that you don't have the brain to be in this forum. Donkey!
Last edited:
Much of the budget is spent on salaries, health care, subsidies, pensions ... China will save a lot of money if it cuts staff salaries or reduces the number of employees. The money saved will be used to research new weapons.
The reduction of the number of employees does not affect the power of the PLA because artificial intelligence, automation ... will solve this problem.
The reduction of the number of employees does not affect the power of the PLA because artificial intelligence, automation ... will solve this problem.
Until you demonstrate that China needs to cut salaries, health care, subsidies (many of which are for companies that develop for the PLA, or pensions, I'd rather my grandparents live comfortably rather then have them die of chronic disease like they do in the US because the government decided to spend all the money on nuclear weapons.
Yet you've insulted me yet again. Lol... Do you really wanna get into trouble? Let's get back on topic again for a bit, you clown!
You wanna talk about facts? OK. Let's start with the Global Times, the defacto CCP's mouthpiece. This is an article by them already backing up everything that I and others have been are arguing about, regarding the merits of expanding China's nuclear arsenal. If you don't know who the Global Times is, then I really do doubt your're 'Chinese'.
Wait, there's more. Here is a nuclear war casualty study by Princeton University in 1986:
Check out their quote:
34 million deaths against the 240million US population of 1986 is about 14%. And that's with 3000 Soviet warheads! Contrast that with your ridiculous assertion that just 40 Chinese nukes can kill 20% of the US population or more. What do you have to say about that? Where are your sources?
This is turning into dumb mud-slinging from your end. No longer an educated exchange of ideas. You're not in control. You've presented zero facts to back your laughable arguments. So now you wanna troll people here? You better watch out. I don't know how long you'll last here.
Last edited:
China's policy of minimum deterrence of keeping around 300 or so warheads was maybe appropriate in the 1970s to maybe 2000s where it wasn't the primary target of the US. Times are changing and this policy should (and probably has long been) updated even if the Chinese diplomatic line remains firmly NFU and low stockpile, the same as it has been since the 1960s.
I'm going to leave that old discussion because I've seen nothing new from totenchan. He's basically requoted his empty post in response to one of my questions, without answering yet again and saying he has answered. So that whole thing is pointless but none of us know what China truly has or what is truly appropriate. At least now many basic things that should be noted have been.
I'm going to leave that old discussion because I've seen nothing new from totenchan. He's basically requoted his empty post in response to one of my questions, without answering yet again and saying he has answered. So that whole thing is pointless but none of us know what China truly has or what is truly appropriate. At least now many basic things that should be noted have been.
bajingan
Senior Member
You are absolutely right, no need to keep feeding the troll
Well, you probably do not know the concept of MAD and nuclear winter. As long as the US is cripple, it will not just sit there. It will make sure to annihilate all other industrialized areas, in order to make sure that the US does not fall victim to a future where she herself is economically crippled, while another industrial nation is entirely intact.
Imagine the scenario where US is crippled and China is annihilated and the rest of the world is untouched. The US will end becoming a prey to those untouched industrial nations: Europe, Russia and Japan. In a way, all China need is the ability to ensure that she can penetrate the US missile defense in a second strike and destroy enough of the US economy to trigger MAD and Nuclear Winter.
- Status