China's Defense Spending Thread

[PiSigma]

Of course economic growth is fundamental. See my above post for examples of countries where high military spending doesn't hurt growth. If China goes with a 2% of GDP cap, it won't reach the USA's nominal spending before 2050, and even later for the cumulative amount.

I don't see why they need to spend more than US. Especially when US is over spending.

 

[Klon]

Israel is a special case, they got enemies surrounding them. What needs to be looked at are large countries in growth mode that have high military budget. I can't really think of one. US didn't have a big budget until after WW2, by then they already had 50% of world economy.

Cold war period is not comparable IMO. China also had a high budget then. Post cold war, SK budget is very much in the 2% range... And that is with a crazy neighbour.

The goalposts have passed Mars. I can't write anything more. Please take another look at the data.

 

[solarz]

Of course economic growth is fundamental. See my above post for examples of countries where high military spending doesn't hurt growth. If China goes with a 2% of GDP cap, it won't reach the USA's nominal spending before 2050, and even later for the cumulative amount.

Why does China need to reach USA's spending levels?

 

[Klon]

Why does China need to reach USA's spending levels?

Well, I'd say the background is pretty clear. Although they're on different continents, the USA wants to be very close, so it has military bases in S. Korea, Japan, Australia, Guam, the Philippines, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan (and more). I don't know why they're there, but I doubt its for summer camp.
In this context, and considering that China's GDP will be larger than America's in about a decade, the question might as well be, why not?

 

[2handedswordsman]

Because it's simply a waste of money and resources.Even now PRC can sustain and defend itself through an attack and also retaliate nukes in a worse case scenario.The main difference is that politics in PRC are (still) not driven by the private industrial-military complex like US.PRC is forming its own sphere of allies-hope not dummies- driven by direct investments,not by military force,coup d'etat's etc.I would call it "imperialism with chinese characteristics"

 

[solarz]

Well, I'd say the background is pretty clear. Although they're on different continents, the USA wants to be very close, so it has military bases in S. Korea, Japan, Australia, Guam, the Philippines, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan (and more). I don't know why they're there, but I doubt its for summer camp.
In this context, and considering that China's GDP will be larger than America's in about a decade, the question might as well be, why not?

Because it's simply a waste of money and resources.Even now PRC can sustain and defend itself through an attack and also retaliate nukes in a worse case scenario.The main difference is that politics in PRC are (still) not driven by the private industrial-military complex like US.PRC is forming its own sphere of allies-hope not dummies- driven by direct investments,not by military force,coup d'etat's etc.I would call it "imperialism with chinese characteristics"

In addition to what @2handedswordsman said, why do you feel it's so important to emulate the US?

Where the US builds military bases, China builds railroads, ports, and trade hubs. The US power projection model is based on WW2 and Cold War needs. It is woefully outdated in the 21st century, but the US cannot abandon it because of momentum and entrenched interests. Why should China seek to build something similar when far better alternatives exist?

 

[PiSigma]

Well, I'd say the background is pretty clear. Although they're on different continents, the USA wants to be very close, so it has military bases in S. Korea, Japan, Australia, Guam, the Philippines, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan (and more). I don't know why they're there, but I doubt its for summer camp.
In this context, and considering that China's GDP will be larger than America's in about a decade, the question might as well be, why not?

The US is not exactly the gold standard for everything. In my opinion, every country should try to emulate the Scandinavian countries. Good social care from government due to money saved from not spending on military.

 

[Klon]

In addition to what @2handedswordsman said, why do you feel it's so important to emulate the US?

Where the US builds military bases, China builds railroads, ports, and trade hubs. The US power projection model is based on WW2 and Cold War needs. It is woefully outdated in the 21st century, but the US cannot abandon it because of momentum and entrenched interests. Why should China seek to build something similar when far better alternatives exist?

The US is not exactly the gold standard for everything. In my opinion, every country should try to emulate the Scandinavian countries. Good social care from government due to money saved from not spending on military.

I wasn't saying China should follow the USA in opening overseas bases (better to work on removing them from the region).

What I've been trying to say is that military spending is not something that exists in a vacuum; instead, it's arrived at by looking at the threats a country is facing. As an example: how many fifth-generation fighters should China acquire over the next 20 years? 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 or 12800? I'd say the answer is between 1600 and 3200 (very broadly). Why would most people say anything below 800 is too low, when the number will be 0 for Vietnam and Myanmar, under 50 for S. Korea, 100 for Australia and so on? Why can't China be happy with 100 J-20s? Because the USA will be getting 2500 F-35s which will, along with a lot of other stuff, represent a serious threat to Chinese security. If these planes can be matched by a much smaller number of Chinese planes, that's great. If it can all be done with 2% of GDP, even better. If that's not possible, here's where a ramp up in spending comes in.

 

[solarz]

I wasn't saying China should follow the USA in opening overseas bases (better to work on removing them from the region).

What I've been trying to say is that military spending is not something that exists in a vacuum; instead, it's arrived at by looking at the threats a country is facing. As an example: how many fifth-generation fighters should China acquire over the next 20 years? 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 or 12800? I'd say the answer is between 1600 and 3200 (very broadly). Why would most people say anything below 800 is too low, when the number will be 0 for Vietnam and Myanmar, under 50 for S. Korea, 100 for Australia and so on? Why can't China be happy with 100 J-20s? Because the USA will be getting 2500 F-35s which will, along with a lot of other stuff, represent a serious threat to Chinese security. If these planes can be matched by a much smaller number of Chinese planes, that's great. If it can all be done with 2% of GDP, even better. If that's not possible, here's where a ramp up in spending comes in.

I'd say the Chinese government and military knows their needs and gaps far better than any of us here, and since they have decided to keep military expenditure at 2%, that pretty much answers your question.

 

[Klon]

I'd say the Chinese government and military knows their needs and gaps far better than any of us here, and since they have decided to keep military expenditure at 2%, that pretty much answers your question.

I don't remember having a question. In any case, we'll see what happens.
For me, it was more about doing a projection with some actual numbers, but it turns out everyone who responded disagreed with the premise.