How much does China spend on its military?

Quote :

"It depends whose figures you trust, experts say. China—starting from a relatively low level—has increased its military spending each year for the last fifteen years. Beijing's official estimate of its military spending is currently between $30 billion and $35 billion dollars, which most experts say is lower than the actual figure. Many independent analysts put the real figure at $50 billion to $65 billion, including research and development. The Pentagon's estimates, however, range from $70 billion to a high of $105 billion per year. 'It'd be very hard to find an independent analyst who believes that [$105 billion] figure is even remotely accurate,' Carpenter says."

Quote :

"'In this situation, when China and the United States both have some uncertainty about the other's long-term intentions, we will hedge against each other,' Bush says. 'We would both like the relationship to work out in the long term, but we can't be sure.'"

Are other Asian countries worried?

Quote :

"Japan is watching China's developments with concern and building its military accordingly. Its military spending is estimated at about $40 billion to $50 billion annually, ranking it second globally behind the United States if China's official figures are used. Experts say the parallel buildup of the militaries of China and Japan could be worrisome. 'We've never had both a strong China and a strong Japan in the region at the same time,' Segal says. He points out, 'All the capabilities China is developing for Taiwan affect Japan.' As nationalism rises in both countries and conservative politicians in Japan suggest amending the constitution to allow the country to remilitarize, tensions are growing between the traditional rivals."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10824/scope_of_chinas_military_threat.html

There was a good discussion about this on The Diane Rehm Show yesterday. There were obviously differing viewpoints about the threat China poses militarily, but the discussion of China's sea-based transport expansion really concerned me.

China, of course, has a large population and a large military. But they have never really transported that military force for any significant distance, such as over the sea. It was posited that they can now do this effectively.

China's sea-based transport expansion, the hidden and growing military spending, the size of the military force, and an unknown variable such as an advanced nuclear weapon truly concern me.

Is the United States burying its head in the sand like we did during Japan's military buildup prior to World War II?

10/4/2007 1:26:01 AM

when they ring the Doomsday Bell, all Chinamen will simultaneously jump up and down, with the resulting shockwave traveling through the earth's mantle, dislodging the San Andreas Fault, and sending western California into the ocean.

not to mention that they've been seeding the clouds that cause Hurricanes in the Gulf.

slant eyed bastards, they are... every last one of 'em.

10/4/2007 1:30:54 AM

isnt china gonna start running the panama canal soon?

10/4/2007 1:33:06 AM

Quote :

"But they have never really transported that military force for any significant distance, such as over the sea. It was posited that they can now do this effectively."

Unlike with the Soviet Union which threatened to overrun Western Europe at a moment's notice, China doesn't have a real equivalent. I don't think anyone is really worried about PLA tanks rolling down the streets of Seattle. Nor should it be any surprise that China is building up the amphibious capability to cross the Taiwan Strait to keep their little "renegade province" in line. This has pretty much been a given for the last fifty years.

I wouldn't give them some sort of vast range to touch the homeland, and I'm a bit surprised that an advanced Chinese nuclear deterrent is of some sort of shock. They've had the capability to turn our cities into sheets of glass for decades; this is hardly some new emerging threat.

To me, what is interesting is their growing blue water navy in terms of the Malacca Straits and the South China Sea. A blue water navy gives China the tools it requires to ensure that critical sea lanes from Europe and the Middle East remain open. As for the South China Sea, this one has been brewing for at least a decade, ever since the US and the Philippines had that little falling out, and our navy decided to ditch their bases there. Outside of Taiwan and North Korea, this is probably the next most likely place for crap to go down.

Nor would I think that the United States is somehow ignoring this issue. The Pentagon, while consumed with Iraq, fully understands that the next potential military threat is coming out of China. Why else do they continue to procure new fighter craft, long range bombers, and other long lead time weapon systems when they're dealing with a massive FUBAR of a guerrilla war?

As for China dominating the region, I don't disagree per say. Instead of trying to unite the entire continent under a single banner though, I think their goal is simple hegemony. However, there are a lot of other significant players that could stymie their efforts: Japan with its massive economy and powerful military, the rising Indian menace, the Australians to the South, the South Koreans with a very effective ground force, and of course, everyone's favorite Russians. A coalition of some of these plays could balance out China and establish some sort of stability in the region.

I do worry about an arms race though. Increased Chinese buildup will provoke a Japanese buildup. A Japanese buildup will provoke a South Korean buildup. Taiwan will buy just about any weapon system that we offer to them. Unlike some of the smaller powers in Southeast Asia, the Northeast Asian nations have the economic base to build up some really nasty stockpiles. Hell, they already have some of the largest and best equipped military forces in the world. The only thing really restraining them are the US bilateral agreements which ensures that they do not maintain a fully independent C3I network. Throw in the Indians and the Australians who are also wary of Chinese buildups, and you've got a recipe for strategic destabilization.

Of course, there's still a very realistic chance that the Chinese could simply implode. They're a lot more fragile than people realize.

It's prudent to be concerned and wise to plan, but I wouldn't go and declare a new cold war quite yet.

10/4/2007 1:51:31 AM

nice work.

10/4/2007 2:08:45 AM

^^ I'll address some of your points in reverse order.

Quote :

"It's prudent to be concerned and wise to plan, but I wouldn't go and declare a new cold war quite yet."

Concerning the latter part of that sentence, I did nothing of the sort.

Quote :

"Nor should it be any surprise that China is building up the amphibious capability to cross the Taiwan Strait to keep their little 'renegade province' in line. This has pretty much been a given for the last fifty years."

First, I never said it was a "surprise"; I said I was concerned. Second, you rather nonchalantly mention China invading Taiwan given the implications of the Taiwan Relations Act, which in effect obligates the United States to assist Taiwan in the event of an attack (we have similar agreements with Japan):

Quote :

"(2) to declare that peace and stability in the area are in the political, security, and economic interests of the United States, and are matters of international concern; (3) to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means; (4) to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States; (5) to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and (6) to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."

http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive_Index/Taiwan_Relations_Act.html

Quote :

"I'm a bit surprised that an advanced Chinese nuclear deterrent is of some sort of shock. They've had the capability to turn our cities into sheets of glass for decades; this is hardly some new emerging threat."

Um. . .no shit. That why I posted the following:

Quote :

"[A]n unknown variable such as an advanced nuclear weapon. . . ."

Meaning an unknown advanced nuclear weapon, one that we may not have anticipated or a delivery method that we may not have anticipated. In addition, I think it should have been clear to anyone that I was referring to such a weapon in an offensive context. Understand that part now?

PS: The term "grave concern" is usually diplomatic code for a provocation--FYI.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 2:40 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 2:14:59 AM

but where teh rolly?

10/4/2007 2:16:38 AM

^ I don't know. Check your ass--I heard a lot of shit goes up in there.

10/4/2007 2:21:09 AM

I wonder if there's a chinese message board somewhere where they are talking about the growing threat of America and how unpredictable we are.

10/4/2007 2:23:40 AM

i think iran is in front of china on the war list

10/4/2007 2:33:14 AM

^^ Stupid. Only a blame-America-first douche bag thinks like that.

Answer these questions:

1. Why is China hiding much of its military budget?

2. Why has China increased its military budget each year for the past fifteen years (the part we know about)?

3. Why has China continued to increase its sea-based military operations?

Chinese Navy Buildup Gives Pentagon New Worries

Quote :

"A decade ago, American military planners dismissed the threat of a Chinese attack against Taiwan as a 100-mile infantry swim. The Pentagon now believes that China has purchased or built enough amphibious assault ships, submarines, fighter jets and short-range missiles to pose an immediate threat to Taiwan and to any American force that might come to Taiwan's aid. In the worst case in a Taiwan crisis, Pentagon officials say that any delay in American aircraft carriers reaching the island would mean that the United States would initially depend on fighter jets and bombers based on Guam and Okinawa, while Chinese forces could use their amphibious ships to go back and forth across the narrow Taiwan Strait. Some American military analysts believe China could now defeat Taiwan before American forces could arrive at the scene, leaving a political decision about whether to attack, even though Taiwan would already be lost."

Quote :

"'They are building their force to deter and delay our ability to intervene in a Taiwan crisis,' said Eric McVadon, a former military attaché at the United States Embassy in Beijing. 'What they have done is cleverly develop some capabilities that have the prospect of attacking our niche vulnerabilities.'"

Quote :

"But Mr. Murai said China's military would continue to expand and modernize for years to come because of the country's booming economy, while Japan is restricted by budget constraints and its World War II era Constitution. Chinese subs and Japanese vessels already have played politically explosive cat-and-mouse games around a string of islands claimed by both countries. 'The speed of our modernization is not so rapid as in China,' Mr. Murai said. 'Many people in Japan worry that the balance eventually will be less favorable.'"

Quote :

"'If the Taiwan issue was resolved next month, China's military modernization would not end,' Mr. Karniol said. 'The Chinese understand that if their ambition is to become the dominant power in Asia - well, who can disrupt that? The United States and Japan.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/international/asia/08china.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin

^ Preparation for each threat is not mutually exclusive--and the "war list," if such exists, should not be enumerated.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 2:45 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 2:39:02 AM

Quote :

"^^ Stupid. Only a blame-America-first douche bag thinks like that. "

That was not a blame-america-first comment, dumbass.

I was pointing out how unfounded your paranoia is. We should keep an eye on China, like anyone else, but they are not especially or particularly a threat, even with spending money on their military. What's wrong with defending yourself? Should no other country have a military? Should countries keep their military budgets and spending practices out in the open?

The fact of the matter is, by actions, China is not a threat, compared to any other country out there, and are lesser of a threat than a good chunk of other countries as well. Not to mention that GINORMOUS list of economic reasons why China wouldn't piss us off (and we them).

This topic is only mildly interesting to discuss, but you seem to be irrationally paranoid about it, which I guess are 2 features typical to your kind.

10/4/2007 2:51:52 AM

^ You're a fucking idiot.

1. Thread title: "China a Growing Military Threat?" It's a question, dipshit, not a statement.

2. I have posted that I am "concerned." You read "paranoid," because that fits your stupid fucking narrative that all conservatives are hair-triggered hawks ("typical to your kind").

3. Clearly, much of this hidden fifteen-year buildup is offensive in nature--not defensive, as you suggested.

4. If this topic bores you so much, I invite you to stay the fuck out of the thread.

10/4/2007 3:37:02 AM

First off, I'm down with the absence of rollies in here, and to his credit, hooksaw has presented a pretty reasonable arguement. GG.

Moving on,

Quote :

"To me, what is interesting is their growing blue water navy in terms of the Malacca Straits and the South China Sea. A blue water navy gives China the tools it requires to ensure that critical sea lanes from Europe and the Middle East remain open."

The Straits of Malacca are the last real pirate haven in the world right now, a strong international presence there could be very beneficial. It could also be disasterous should the Chinese decide to shut it down.

Quote :

"Instead of trying to unite the entire continent under a single banner though, I think their goal is simple hegemony."

Agreed. They're more interested in using their economic power, backed by the threat of military force, than old fashioned conquering.

Quote :

"Not to mention that GINORMOUS list of economic reasons why China wouldn't piss us off (and we them)."

China is becoming a more and more economically independent entity. With the falling dollar, we're less of a critical link in the Chinese economy than we used to be, and we'll likely continue to fall over the next few years.

It isn't in China's interest to go head to head with us in a massive battle royale, but they will use their military to shore up their increasing economic clout and to back up their access to natural resources. This would be the most likely flash point.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 7:38 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 7:36:31 AM

Quote :

"3. Clearly, much of this hidden fifteen-year buildup is offensive in nature--not defensive, as you suggested."

Offensive to whom, exactly? They're just now building the capability to effectively move their army across a small strait, and we're supposed to be concerned for our safety? They don't have the capability to project force outside the region, let alone the desire, and as the article states:

Quote :

"Most experts would define 'threat' to mean a combination of capability and intentions"

You missed the point of the first legitimate link you've ever posted (surprise!).

They're obviously intent on being the region's hegemon, but how does that constitute a threat to us? At worst, given a suicidal leadership, they pose a threat to regional stability. Whether or not that is likely to happen is what the article is discussing.

this:

Quote :

"Is the United States burying its head in the sand like we did during Japan's military buildup prior to World War II?"

is unrelated, and dumb. There's a significant difference between regional hegemon of East Asia and a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.

10/4/2007 8:28:09 AM

Quote :

"There's a significant difference between regional hegemon of East Asia and a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere."

Not completely. China has a voracious appetite for raw materials and will do what it takes to secure them in the future.

Remember, in the 1930s, many right-leaning Americans looked to Hitler, Mussolini, and other fascists (to a lesser extent the Japanese) as role models. They had pulled their nations out of depression, they were models of organization, growth and military power, and they were the alternative to the Communists. Hitler might have been seen as disagreeable, but I don't think that large numbers of American's would have categorized him as evil in 1938 given what they knew at the time.

In this case, China is a model of economic prosperity which American Capitalists look to as an example of the free market and an opportunity to line their own pockets. We underestimate its ability to cause havoc and its hunger for steady supply streams for the same reasons we ignored the early stages of WWII; they have pulled their nation from an agricultural one to an industrializing one, they are a model of organization, growth and expanding military power, and their organization and statehood is a counterpoint to the nebulous organization and tribal-level politics of much of the Islamic world.

This isn't foolproof, but it puts the situation into context.

10/4/2007 9:24:19 AM

Quote :

"hunger for steady supply streams"

Quote :

"expanding military power"

Yes, but the extent of the hunger and expansion is what makes the two very different. Not to mention ultimate intent--while I'm sure there's a strong nationalistic feeling in China today, is it even in the same ballpark as the hypernationalism of post Meiji Restoration Japan?

At most, a comparison could be made with pre-1904 Japan.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 9:39 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 9:39:28 AM

Quote :

"First, I never said it was a "surprise"; I said I was concerned. Second, you rather nonchalantly mention China invading Taiwan given the implications of the Taiwan Relations Act, which in effect obligates the United States to assist Taiwan in the event of an attack (we have similar agreements with Japan):"

If push comes to shove, it's my opinion we'll sell out Taiwan.

Japan, we'll defend.

Quote :

"1. Why is China hiding much of its military budget? 2. Why has China increased its military budget each year for the past fifteen years (the part we know about)? 3. Why has China continued to increase its sea-based military operations? "

1. Probably to not let everyone else know what they're doing. That's natural for governments.
2. To have a strong military.
3. To have a strong navy.

China has a desire to be not a world power, but the world power. A strong military is a part of that vision. I actually read that one of the effects of the First Persian Gulf War was that the Chinese army were surprised at how impotent the Iraqi military was compared to American firepower, cause Chinese machinery and equipment at the time was very similar to Iraq's. And so part of the post-war effects was it caused a full-scale upgrade to Chinese firepower in their army.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 9:57:10 AM

Quote :

"Concerning the latter part of that sentence, I did nothing of the sort."

Calm down, I wasn't saying that you're creating some sort of hysteria, merely trying to place where on the scale of things the China threat is.

Quote :

"Second, you rather nonchalantly mention China invading Taiwan given the implications of the Taiwan Relations Act, which in effect obligates the United States to assist Taiwan in the event of an attack (we have similar agreements with Japan)"

Hey, I'm simply saying that this issue has been a part of our national defense planning since the beginning of the Cold War. Also, while I agree that the Taiwan Relations Act is a powerful symbol of our support for the Republic of China, ultimately, that call is up to whichever president is unlucky enough to have this crisis dropped in their lap. Wavering concern about America's commitment to both Taiwan and the region is a topic of regular discussion in the region.

Quote :

"Meaning an unknown advanced nuclear weapon, one that we may not have anticipated or a delivery method that we may not have anticipated."

And that would be what...? Dropped by a satellite from orbit? Sure, the Chinese may have developed or stolen an advanced design and built a nuke with greater yield like a neutron bomb or such, but I don't think that such a development would fundamentally alter the current strategic balance.

Quote :

"In addition, I think it should have been clear to anyone that I was referring to such a weapon in an offensive context. Understand that part now?"

Look, I understand your point that China is rapidly developing a capability to project force beyond its traditional area. I'm simply saying that it shouldn't be a surprise to begin with given China's rapidly growing economic interests. Also, this talk about nuclear subs, air force modernization, amphibious assault, and blue water navies have been known for over a decade and while some increase tensions, they don't add anything really new to the strategic equation.

To be fair though, I would be more concerned about things like growing Chinese ASAT capabilities or their development of light aircraft carriers (which are not really important with Taiwan) that would allow China to increase their range in the South China Sea.

Quote :

"Is the United States burying its head in the sand like we did during Japan's military buildup prior to World War II?"

As I mentioned before, the our government is already keeping a close eye on it and are starting to react accordingly though quietly. It's too early to say that conflict is inevitable like it became with us and Japan in the late 1930s.

10/4/2007 9:57:31 AM

^^^ Yeah, I'm not saying its exact, but there are some parallels.

10/4/2007 9:59:35 AM

^Oh, then sure.

^^^It seems like defending Taiwan could be done entirely in sea and air, in which case we'd pwn. Doesn't seem worth breaking our promises.

10/4/2007 10:02:48 AM

^ It's not a case of breaking promises. It's a case of who are the real stakeholders.

The typical American, unless they are Taiwanese themselves or have connections there, does not care about the Taiwanese people. It's just the truth. We didn't care about Rwandans, we don't care about Darfur, we don't care about Iraqis, and we won't care about the Taiwanese. However, we now have lots of Fortune 500 corporations that make lots of money and have high growth potential under the embraces of the Chinese government, and they will care. Who do politicians receive a lot of their fundraising money from? I know my company, a truly worldwide company, makes a significant portion of their profits via joint venture with Dong Feng.

Nixon, virulent anti-Communist he was, sold out Taiwan in the 1970s. Nixon was a son of a b****, but he was a cagey strategist and saw the future. I think we should defend Taiwan if war happened. I just don't think it'll happen and we'll make a strategic decision not to.

I think it's far more likely that China will gradually take over Taiwan like they are doing with Hong Kong and Macao. The Taiwanese political party that supports greater integration with the mainland will probably receive support from the mainland that will help their political fortunes. The PRC certainly has the money and wherewithal to do it.


[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 10:10:43 AM

Fuck it, lets just nuke those slanty ass bastards out of the water. GIT ER DUN we'll show them yellow people who the world power is. USA USA USA!!!

10/4/2007 10:15:45 AM

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9769165

10/4/2007 10:31:17 AM

^^^^ Your objection to my comparison has little to do with the merits and is mostly about your hooksaw derangement syndrome. China is actively developing weapons that will slow the United States' ability to assist Taiwan during an attack. It's a fact--check it out for yourself.

And your position is that we should be unconcerned about this military buildup?

^^ Stupid. Nobody here as suggested anything of the sort--oh, except you.

10/4/2007 4:00:47 PM

If China wants Taiwan they will get Taiwan. The big question is how exactly they'll do this. There have been major efforts to get Taiwan to integrate into China much along the lines that Hong Kong did (pseudo-independent and democratically) and it seems to be at least catching on inside Taiwan (since a huge portion of the population actually works in China and commutes back and forth.) The problem comes in when/if Taiwan actually declares independence from China, this will likely result in Taiwan being taken over.

10/4/2007 4:04:34 PM

Quote :

"^^^It seems like defending Taiwan could be done entirely in sea and air, in which case we'd pwn. Doesn't seem worth breaking our promises."

Not necessarily. Remember, if the PRC attacks Taiwan, they've got a TON of material right there that they can throw across the channel all at once. Even if we had a couple of carrier battle groups and AEGIS missile cruisers there, we can only intercept so many fighters, bombers, and cruise missiles all flying across the strait at the same time.

Quote :

"If China wants Taiwan they will get Taiwan."

I tend to agree with this. The American deterrent is to simply make the cost of a military approach so high for them that it will encourage the PRC to seek other methods.

10/4/2007 4:37:39 PM

I disagree. While I have no doubt the Chinese could manage a degree of infiltration (paratroopers, bombing runs, etc), to conquer Taiwan would require a massive landing of troops, which requires ships. And while it is true that a U.S. carrier group would be hard pressed properly defending itself from a constant barrage of planes and missiles, I suspect coupled with stocked airfields in Taiwan the U.S. will be able to maintain air capabilities sufficient to sink any naval activity on the part of the Chinese.

As such, while the Chinese will easily be able to kill millions of Taiwanese citizens, military conquest of the islands when faced with U.S. military support is improbable in my opinion.

10/4/2007 8:53:07 PM

Quote :

"1. Thread title: "China a Growing Military Threat?" It's a question, dipshit, not a statement. "

And so far you've been an ass to anyone not on your side of the question. It's a wonder I might think you're making a statement.

Quote :

"2. I have posted that I am "concerned." You read "paranoid," because that fits your stupid fucking narrative that all conservatives are hair-triggered hawks ("typical to your kind")."

You implied that you are worried that China might offensively use a nuclear weapon. Not only is that paranoid, that's blatant stupidity.

Quote :

"3. Clearly, much of this hidden fifteen-year buildup is offensive in nature--not defensive, as you suggested."

There's no such thing, in reality, as a defensive military buildup. Any military of any sort is going to be viewed offensively on the world scale. Only a simpleton would attempt to draw a meaningful distinction.

Quote :

"4. If this topic bores you so much, I invite you to stay the fuck out of the thread. "

Your stupidity is the only thing that's REALLY getting boring. You should really try something else.

10/5/2007 1:25:49 AM

^ Get the fuck out, you stupid motherfucker.

10/5/2007 2:11:30 AM

yes

10/5/2007 9:07:29 AM

^ Good answer.

10/5/2007 11:50:43 AM

I think a far better way to ask the question would be, "Is China's military growing disproportionately to the rest of the country?"

We expect nations to have a military capability that matches a certain proportion of its overall size, economy, and level of technological development. Given that China is enormous and has a rapidly growing level of tech know-how, one would expect it to have a correspondingly sizeable military. This is especially true given that China does not share our ideology and thus fall under our own military umbrella, which allows other countries to have relatively smaller forces.

Now yes, Chinese military spending has been growing for some time, but given the state of their armed forces that's not surprising. To be totally frank, if you ask me it's rather a disproportionately non-threatening. Its army and air forces, while large, are second rate in terms of equipment and, if memory serves, combat training. They're not incompetent, but they're not top-tier either. Their navy, meanwhile, is almost completely impotent, severely lacking in the crucial areas of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines capable of nuclear missile launches.

In short, its power is reasonably large but its projection is almost entirely local. And that makes sense. It borders a number of unstable countries. One of these, Russia, also has a reasonably large military, to say nothing of a history of border conflicts with China.

And there is, of course, always Taiwan. I suspect there are elements of the Chinese government, and certainly of the military, that want to actually do something about Taiwan. I also suspect that these are in the minority. In the meantime, certain aspects of their buildup are either geared towards conflict there, or at least seem to be, which once again makes perfect sense in a relatively non-threatening way. This lets them appease the more belligerent factions within their own government -- "Be patient like a good communist, just let us build the requisite equipment" -- while also equipping them in a way that is more generally useful and recognizes that even if the conflict doesn't start with aggressive Chinese action it may well ultimately involve Taiwan.

In the meantime, China is getting far too rich by not fighting us to make invading Taiwan worthwhile. An invasion would almost certainly be the product of some sort of hardliner coup, or a major deterioration within China or in Sino-American relations, either of which might shift the balance so that taking the island was worth losing American trade.

In short: China's buildup is, so far, really just catching it up with where one would expect it to be. It is not disproportionately large. Conflict over Taiwan remains relatively unlikely.

10/5/2007 6:36:10 PM

It's a shame you can't change your name to GrumpyLiberal

10/5/2007 8:29:57 PM

I don't see why. I didn't express any liberal viewpoint anywhere in there.

I am all about America having an extremely powerful military. There's just no need to gear it -- or any other aspect of policy, really -- with the Chinese military as a central concern.

If we want to worry about China in some way, let's focus our efforts in making sure we can continue to outstrip them in critical economic factors. Also, we should be trying to match their foreign policy efforts in the third world. They've been courting a number of countries in Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East for some time now, investing in things we probably should have beaten them to and making a lot of (admittedly minor) friends in the process.

10/5/2007 8:42:17 PM

^^^ A thoughtful post. I still say, however, that the ramifications of the Taiwan Relations Act and this. . .

Quote :

"'They are building their force to deter and delay our ability to intervene in a Taiwan crisis,' said Eric McVadon, a former military attaché at the United States Embassy in Beijing. 'What they have done is cleverly develop some capabilities that have the prospect of attacking our niche vulnerabilities.'"

. . .are KEY issues.

China is not spending all that money and making all those preparations for some vague possible military threat, as you seem to have it. China is preparing for us--the United States! What say you?

10/7/2007 7:07:14 AM

Quote :

"China is preparing for us--the United States!"

Why do they need to prepare for us? Are we going to liberate them after we're done in Iraq?

10/7/2007 9:53:40 AM

You never know.

Besides, it's not just us. A military is a military. That they are stationed near Taiwan does not render them useless in a war with Japan, India, or Russia.

10/7/2007 2:06:12 PM

Quote :

"I still say, however, that the ramifications of the Taiwan Relations Act"

The TRA and our longstanding relationship with the Chinese Nationalists are among the chief reasons not to worry.

Unless we don't intend to uphold our agreements with Taiwan -- and as much is obvious to the chicoms -- China knows that fighting the island means fighting us. And I ask you, what on Taiwan could possibly be worth a hot war against your chief trading partner, your bread and butter, which also happens to be a military superpower?

There are leaders of some countries who might be batshit enough to do that just for pride or ideology, but not the chicoms. It should be painfully obvious that they are rational in every sense of the word.

Quote :

"China is preparing for us--the United States! What say you?"

This isn't entirely true. Remember Russia, currently unstable, still relatively well armed, and with a history of clashing with the Chinese. They're also near enough surrounded by countries that present risk factors. For example:

1) Competitors, Japan and India
2) Nuclear powers, Russia, N. Korea, India, Pakistan, and though nobody says it I have a hard time believing that the Kazakhs gave up all of their bombs
3) States that are either unstable or prone to irrational action (quite a few, including most of the nuclear list)
4) Several (potential) hotzones, NK and the Pakistan/India border.

In short, they're right next to a long list of good reasons to have a strong military, especially considering that it's in their best interest to be able to intervene on their own and thus pre-empt or mitigate American involvement and influence in the region.

---

That said, yes, of course they've got us in mind for purposes of military spending. To not do so would be foolish. You don't design your military so that it's able to fend off the weakest of your possible foes, you design it to be able to fend off the strongest. This is true even if you don't particularly expect to get in that fight -- in matters military, the prevailing thought (at least among governments) is, "Better safe than sorry."

China wants its military to be able to handle us, yes, but that doesn't mean they want it to [/i]have[/i] to do so. It's for this kind of reason that you know that somewhere, deep in the Pentagon, there is a plan for how to go about invading Canada. Admittedly, a US-China conflict is rather more likely than a US-Canadian one, but that, too, is to be expected; not only are we "the strongest," we're also a political and ideological opponent. That doesn't leave war as a forgone conclusion, but it does -- quite logically -- shape your planning.

So, what say I? I say no shit China is thinking about us when they make their military purchases, but that cannot be taken to mean that they are planning for military conflict.

10/7/2007 7:06:23 PM

Why would China even try to flare up world tempers by invading Taiwan. Do they have that much to gain compared to the possible political backlash and wars it may result.

10/7/2007 7:16:57 PM

not right now

10/7/2007 9:21:22 PM

Quote :

"This isn't entirely true. Remember Russia, currently unstable, still relatively well armed, and with a history of clashing with the Chinese. They're also near enough surrounded by countries that present risk factors. For example: 1) Competitors, Japan and India 2) Nuclear powers, Russia, N. Korea, India, Pakistan, and though nobody says it I have a hard time believing that the Kazakhs gave up all of their bombs 3) States that are either unstable or prone to irrational action (quite a few, including most of the nuclear list) 4) Several (potential) hotzones, NK and the Pakistan/India border. In short, they're right next to a long list of good reasons to have a strong military, especially considering that it's in their best interest to be able to intervene on their own and thus pre-empt or mitigate American involvement and influence in the region."

Well, a lot of those reasons you list don't really apply. China has as much to worry of a Kazakh or North Korean attack as we do of an attack from the Mexican Army or Bahamas Navy.

For starters, there's the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is best described as a Russian-Chinese attempt at an Asian NATO to counter Western military influence. The group as of now is relatively loose, but has a lot of China's neighbors in it all the same that discuss mutual defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organization

Poor Mongolia. Blue are full-fledged members (China, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan), green are observers (India, Pakistan, Iran, Mongolia).



[Edited on October 7, 2007 at 9:52 PM. Reason : update]

10/7/2007 9:47:47 PM

Quote :

"chicoms"

GrumpyGOP

Ah, an aficionado of the EIB Network, I see. Nothing wrong with that--it's merely an observation.

Quote :

"China knows that fighting the island means fighting us. And I ask you, what on Taiwan could possibly be worth a hot war against your chief trading partner, your bread and butter, which also happens to be a military superpower?"

GrumpyGOP

I don't know, global hegemony rather than just regional? It's not impossible--just ask these guys:

10/8/2007 1:40:39 AM

Quote :

"China has as much to worry of a Kazakh or North Korean attack as we do of an attack from the Mexican Army or Bahamas Navy."

Attacks from these countries aren't the only worry, and as you say, in some cases aren't even really worries at all. However, China has a vested interest in making sure that it maintains a strong influence in the region, especially to the end of pre-empting or curtailing American influence. This means that it needs to be able to quickly and efficiently be able to intervene, perhaps militarily. China would rather have a nuclear-armed mental-defect in North Korea than a bunch of US Army bases.

Even taking American intervention out of the equation, China has economic interests in its neighbors, and if those are threatened by internal turmoil I assure you they want to be capable of going in and protecting those interests.

The SCO is great and all, but it can't gloss over some longstanding rivalries, especially when most of the governments involved have such a tenuous hold on control. It's great that the one Tajik government decided to join in, but the country has only had elections since 1999 and those have all been fraudulent. Before that it was nearly a decade of civil war, and before that, Communism. How stable to you think that government is gonna be? Do you really think that the next guy to usurp power is going to consider participation in this group to be a forgone conclusion? Sadly, the same can be said for most of the rest of the full-fledged members, and meanwhile we've got a Russia that remains mysterious but still suspiciously on the brink of giving up all pretense to elections and admitting that it's a kleptocracy.

The SCO is useful in the short term because it gives everyone a chance to pretend they have their own big, bad Asian NATO. It lets them mitigate American influence and no doubt helps everyone spy on each other. But I'll eat my hat if any of those countries see it as any real guarantee against future conflict (or even as real a guarantee as can be had in international politics)

---

I regret that I've so far neglected to mention another obvious reason for China to want an effective military, and that is its own potential internal troubles. Aside from bubbling civilian unrest, there's always the risk of factions splitting within the government and the military, which leaves everyone wanting to get themselves the fanciest guns they can just to stay ahead of other Chinese. We can take for granted in America that the Joint Chiefs aren't going to split into two sides and go to war with each other over government reforms. Not so everywhere. Remember, it almost happened in Russia in '91.

---

Quote :

"Ah, an aficionado of the EIB Network, I see. Nothing wrong with that--it's merely an observation."

I swear on my mother's life that I've never heard of the EIB Network. Actually the only places I can recall seeing "chicom" are this site and the book "World War Z."

Quote :

"I don't know, global hegemony rather than just regional? It's not impossible--just ask these guys"

Those guys operated in an era without nuclear weapons or superpowers. Those differences alone are huge. Global hegemony seemed a lot cheaper in 1939.

They also had a reasonable expectation that they could win, not least because they did not think their opponents would honor their obligations to one another. Hitler didn't expect Britain and France to go to war to save Poland. I doubt very strongly that China labors under the same misapprehension regarding our relationship with Taiwan.

Japan wanted regional hegemony, not a global one.

[Edited on October 8, 2007 at 1:54 AM. Reason : ]

10/8/2007 1:48:30 AM

^ EIB is Rush's oufit--FYI.

But what about this, dammit?!

Quote :

"'They are building their force to deter and delay our ability to intervene in a Taiwan crisis,' said Eric McVadon, a former military attaché at the United States Embassy in Beijing. 'What they have done is cleverly develop some capabilities that have the prospect of attacking our niche vulnerabilities.'"

If China's not going to invade or otherwise attack Taiwan, which we would supposedly defend, why are they making all those efforts to "deter and delay our ability to intervene in a Taiwan crisis"? I just think it's damned convenient to simply brush this aside as no big deal.

And I was referring to the possibility--however small--of China having hegemonic aspirations beyond their region. Japan's concerns about China's military buildup represent a growing issue, too--but I wasn't referring to Japan's hegemonic aspirations, if such exist.

[Edited on October 8, 2007 at 2:42 AM. Reason : .]

10/8/2007 2:13:44 AM

Quote :

"The SCO is great and all, but it can't gloss over some longstanding rivalries, especially when most of the governments involved have such a tenuous hold on control. It's great that the one Tajik government decided to join in, but the country has only had elections since 1999 and those have all been fraudulent. Before that it was nearly a decade of civil war, and before that, Communism. How stable to you think that government is gonna be? Do you really think that the next guy to usurp power is going to consider participation in this group to be a forgone conclusion? "

Yes. Why? Cause Tajikistan could gain far more from being friends with China and Russia than without. And that monetary gain is passed on to people, which don't care about having no political voice cause they're living better than anytime they could remember, and that complacency keeps the autocrat in power.

10/8/2007 8:51:40 AM

Quote :

" I wasn't referring to Japan's hegemonic aspirations, if such exist."

Really? You weren't referring to hegemonic aspirations when you posted the picture of Hirohito?

You tried to bring up historical examples (the Axis powers) with a completely different context than we have in the modern era. I was merely demonstrating that. I realize that nobody thinks modern Japan wants world domination.

Quote :

"But what about this, dammit?!"

First, as far as I can tell from anything you've said, it represents one man's opinion.

Second, as I've said before, it is logically and understandably in their best interest to make their plans with us in mind. The most likely point of conflict we are to have with them is Taiwan.

Third, a focus on this issue is broadly beneficial to them -- submarines and transports can be used for more than that one island -- while pinning down American attention and resources more or less pointlessly there. China gets a bigger navy, which it needs anyway, and we end up with a bunch of very expensive equipment tied down in the southern Pacific keeping the nationalists happy on our dollar.

Quote :

"I just think it's damned convenient to simply brush this aside as no big deal."

And I think it's damned simplistic to ignore all of the contributing factors and jump to the conclusion that we need to be putting more attention than we already do on the situation in Taiwan. You're judging the matter solely on its initial appearance -- China is building more guns, so it must want to shoot things.

You don't decide whether a country will do something based on whether or not it has the capacity to, or even if it is developing the capacity to. You decide whether a country will do something based on its interest. For the forseeable future, Taiwan will cost the chicoms far more than it will benefit them.

Quote :

"Yes. Why? Cause Tajikistan could gain far more from being friends with China and Russia than without."

There is a difference between "likely" and "forgone conclusion." My point was that the agreement was purely one of convenience, even more so than most international pacts.

Quote :

"And that monetary gain is passed on to people, which don't care about having no political voice cause they're living better than anytime they could remember"

Oh yes

it always works like that

10/8/2007 1:11:54 PM

i'm going to go out on a limb and say that we will never go to war with China over Taiwan.

if not full integration, some sort of unification with the mainland will occur at some point in the future. Taiwan will go into such an annexation/alliance with open arms.



[Edited on October 8, 2007 at 2:35 PM. Reason : "mainland"]

10/8/2007 2:15:10 PM

^^ Point taken.

^^ and ^ And I never said I wanted the United States to go to war with China--that would be a monumental mistake for all concerned. I was simply raising the point that I think the Chinese military buildup needs to be addressed, and the diplomatic route is the only real option that I think we have.

10/9/2007 12:26:34 AM

I didn't mean to imply that you were suggesting that we attack China. Still and all, I think overly concerning ourselves with it is a mistake. There's too much else in the world what needs bombing.

And while I agree that good, solid diplomatic relations with China are in our interest, I don't generally think that this is the case for reasons related to the military. Ultimately, they can do far more damage to us in the economic arena, and that's the reason we need to be kissing each other's assholes all the time. We both stand to get very rich off of this arrangement, and it's in both our interests to ride that as long and far as we can.

Now, admittedly, at some point the situation will change, but by the time it does a lot of other shit will have also gone horribly wrong. There's not a whole hell of a lot of point in planning for that day now, since there's so many variations on it.

10/9/2007 12:47:33 AM