China's military power

[Big-E]

Much of mankind may be reduced to a lifestyle more like that of the late 19th century.

Does that include woman kind? If that will get my wife to cook me dinner once in awhile then I say let the war begin!:tomato

 

[Wild Weasel]

Nope. Womankind will erupt with harsh language and violent outbursts, and male survivors will be forced to spend the rest of their lives sleeping in the car.
Which is very similar to what happens to me when I do something really stupid.

 

[Big-E]

Nope. Womankind will erupt with harsh language and violent outbursts, and male survivors will be forced to spend the rest of their lives sleeping in the car.
Which is very similar to what happens to me when I do something really stupid.

Will the nuclear radiation cause women to have 46FF bust sizes? If this happens I could live with it.:jump

 

[long live usa]

As to a showdown with the US herself, I'd say the likelyhood is no greater than the potential was for open conflict with the USSR during the Cold War.

you mean potential conflict between USSR/PRC or US/USSR? during the sino soviet split fire fights along the border broke out and mao told his people to prepare for war,luckily this was averted

 

[long live usa]

Will the nuclear radiation cause women to have 46FF bust sizes? If this happens I could live with it.:jump

enjoy the bust sizes enjoy them well.......but i hope you dont mind the adition of one eye and aditional fingers and toes!!!:crazy

 

[badguy2000]

some say china is rising at a rate to challenge American military power and it already has become a major reginal power i want to know your opinions on its military power here is mine
PLAockets of exellance are starting to pop up all over its equipment is up to date and once its t-99s go into large batch production it will have a very good MBT,certainly enough to handle reginal crisis or one in tibet

PLAN:well the navy is not up to snuff with japan's and its offensive projection is limited but certainly able to handle coast defense,also its power will increase with the adition of carriers perhaps the varvag?

PLAAF:the sukhoi numbers have reached some 280 aircraft and it purchased some 30 IL-76 transport planes and 8 IL-78 tankers these numbers will grow increasing the power of the PLAAF and making it a more modern force although i dont know how good the older upgraded MiG 21s would do but the PLAAF is certainly becoming a modern more powerful force
so please i would like to know your opinions

two points:

1,china still lag behind ,

2,china are catching up

 

[Waylander]

If I just look at the defense budget of China (Even the hidden one) and that of the USA I don't think they are catching up. Not in comparison to the US.

 

[Wild Weasel]

Unless the United States is no longer able to continue to fund their immense defence budget, black projects, and advanced research and development programs, the PRC can never actually "catch up."
The US military hegemony will continue to dominate for the forseeable future, because no matter how much the PRC is spending on their own military procurment and R&D- the US military industry is not going to simply stop, and stagnate.

The best that China can realistically achieve in this lifetime is parity, and that day is still a very, very long way off.

Quite frankly, it is premature for anyone to label the PRC as world's second military superpower, because it's quite possible that India will dominate that position before the PRC does. I personally feel that the (current) US government views India as the perfect counter-balance to the PRC as a global superpower, and is leveraging heavily in India's favor.

So, IMO- the real race is between India, and the PRC, rather than either with the USA.

 

[fylr71]

There is one scenerio (extremely unlikely and almost comical but not totally inconcievable)

The year is 2016. The second of two terms by a moderate democratic president are almost up go well with some success in decreasing the defecit and the economy is doing well. There is tremendous success of the with the war on terror. This does However come at a price (i.e. 1 Trillion Dollar) defense budget. People don't see many of the successes because they are almost all done with special forces and not public knowledge due to the fact that many of these missions are in countries where US troops are not supposed to be. People begin to become unhappy with the political landscape due to the defense budget. A massive effort to mobilize the far left by the Green Party earns them 1 seat in the senate and 4 in the house. Then the green party senator manages to get his hands on classified documents describing top secret projects where huge amounts of money is being funneled. The greens then launch a massive propoganda coup in which the democrats and republicans are compared to 1914 Germany for being so militaristic. The effort proves successful and the greens manage to gain control of congress and the presidency by adding religion into their values, and massive vote fraud. The first thing the greens already becoming unpopular because of obsessive environmental spending is try to cut military spending almost completely. Over the next four years the military becomes similar to that of Russia's in 1991. Soldiers aren't getting paid, equipment rots away, all future equipment purchases are cancelled. Finally in 2018 a massive scandal comes out in which the greens had plans to eliminate all of America's nuclear arsenal despite warnings from the joint cheifs and protests by the american people. Protests pick up steam and the protesters knowing of the peace loving greens would not dare to use violence against them, storm the white house. The secret service manages to disperse them but the next day the joint chiefs and whats left of the military basically force the greens out. The joint chief of staff apoints the highest ranking non green member of congress to take over as interim president until elections can be had in 2020. Slowely the process of rebuilding the army begins on America. It is right when the greens win the election in 2016 that China begins preperations for an attack across the Taiwan Straits knowing the US won't stop them China takes Taiwan in two days with little resistance from the Taiwanese most knowing that since the US has abondoned them, resistance serves no purpose. The Chinese rather then punish Taiwan allow it some autonomy and economic freedom. Now however, the large economy of Taiwan is effortlessly absorbed into China's economy which is has steadied out but is still very solid. It is at this point that the Chinese make their move: They increase military spending 5 times knowing that with Taiwan they had the money for a huge military budget. Even in 2016 the Chinese were at least 10 years behind the Americans but by 2020 theyhad caught up. Not because of their massive military spending but because of lack of military spending by the US.

I know its highly unlikely sorry for this disaster scenario being so long. Also, sorry if I offended any green party members but I needed somebody to scapegoat.

 

[swerve]

Unless the United States is no longer able to continue to fund their immense defence budget, black projects, and advanced research and development programs, the PRC can never actually "catch up."
The US military hegemony will continue to dominate for the forseeable future, because no matter how much the PRC is spending on their own military procurment and R&D- the US military industry is not going to simply stop, and stagnate.

I suggest you look up the history of that particular logical fallacy.

To catch up with the USA requires only that the Chinese advance faster than the USA. It doesn't require that the USA stagnate.

At current rates of growth, the Chinese economy in real terms will be larger than the USAs around 2020. Even allowing for a likely slowing of Chinese growth, I think the Chinese economy should be larger than that of the USA by 2025-2030, & maybe earlier (remember that US growth may slow soon - current account imbalances can't keep growing forever). It may still be smaller in nominal terms (standard PPP theory - lower income per head equates to lower prices), but that shouldn't make much difference to their military potential. So, in 20 years or so (when I expect to still be around), China should be able to match US military spending without economic strain, & as time goes on, outspend the USA. After 20 years outspending the USA, do you think China would remain weaker? If so, why?

 

[swerve]

It is at this point that the Chinese make their move: They increase military spending 5 times knowing that with Taiwan they had the money for a huge military budget.

5 times Chinas military spending today* is more than Taiwans GDP. Chinas economy is growing faster than Taiwans, so in 10 years it'll probably be a lot more. A little basic research is always a good idea before you start giving figures. Annexing Taiwan would allow China to

*at purchasing power parity, assuming the PPP for military spending is the same as the economy as a whole. Real Chinese military spending is estimated at 2.3-4.3% of GDP (high end by the CIA). Taiwans GDP is about 7% of Chinas at PPP, 15% exchange-rate converted.

 

[tphuang]

I suggest you look up the history of that particular logical fallacy.

To catch up with the USA requires only that the Chinese advance faster than the USA. It doesn't require that the USA stagnate.

At current rates of growth, the Chinese economy in real terms will be larger than the USAs around 2020. Even allowing for a likely slowing of Chinese growth, I think the Chinese economy should be larger than that of the USA by 2025-2030, & maybe earlier (remember that US growth may slow soon - current account imbalances can't keep growing forever). It may still be smaller in nominal terms (standard PPP theory - lower income per head equates to lower prices), but that shouldn't make much difference to their military potential. So, in 20 years or so (when I expect to still be around), China should be able to match US military spending without economic strain, & as time goes on, outspend the USA. After 20 years outspending the USA, do you think China would remain weaker? If so, why?

I don't really think the issue is that, it's simply that Chinese military spending is not burdened with some of the things that are burdening the American military.
1) fighting two wars
2) upkeeping the huge nuclear submarine fleet
3) upkeeping the 12 expeditionary strike group
4) upkeeping the 12 CVBG
5) much higher compensation packages for American soldiers (although Chinese one is also rising)

From the 2-4, you can see why the USN is so strapped for cash these days.

So due to the different roles in the world for USA and China, China can spend more in PPP terms over USA in certain areas of military.

On a side issue, it's kind of interesting that USA maintains China's spending is 3 times the reported amount when one of its major adjustment factor is PPP. If the one side is reporting it in nominal terms and the other in PPP, you are obviously going to have a huge difference.

On the issue of economy, we can see the GDP in PPP here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
depending on which organization you believe in, the American economy is 1.3 to 1.5 times that of China at the current time. If you factor in Hong Kong, that gap is reduced slightly.

 

[zoolander]

Either way, just number wise, the US government dwarfes the chinese government

The US governemnt defense spending in a couple years will surpass half a trillion dollars while the chinese mililtary might only surpass 100 billion

does anyone know any news on ferture development of the J-10 type 54 ffg or new destroyer classes

 

[swerve]

Either way, just number wise, the US government dwarfes the chinese government

The US governemnt defense spending in a couple years will surpass half a trillion dollars while the chinese mililtary might only surpass 100 billion

Yes, but a lot of the US spending is on things which are more expensive in the USA than China, so the difference is less than it appears. US military spending undoubtedly buys more than Chinese military spending, but you can't judge how much more by a simple comparison of dollars spent.

 

[Grand Danois]

Yes, but a lot of the US spending is on things which are more expensive in the USA than China, so the difference is less than it appears. US military spending undoubtedly buys more than Chinese military spending, but you can't judge how much more by a simple comparison of dollars spent.

True to some extent. However, all the stuff that decides the outcome of wars like F-22's have a RER close to 1 everywhere. (Real Exchange Ratio). High RER's are only good for low tech militaries

 

[swerve]

True to some extent. However, all the stuff that decides the outcome of wars like F-22's have a RER close to 1 everywhere. (Real Exchange Ratio). High RER's are only good for low tech militaries

For weapons, yes, & if you compare only weapons purchases it doesn't matter much whether you use exchange rates or try to work out a PPP. Won't change the figures much.

But the majority of every military budget isn't for weapons, but on manpower, buildings, maintenance, etc., & those are the things which differ in price, so if you're comparing total spending, you'll get a distorted view using exchange rates. Should the fact that US military pensioners are paid more than Indian or Chinese military pensioners be taken to mean that they add more to US military effectiveness than Indian or Chinese? Because that's one of the costs in the US military budget.

Straightforward comparisons of military spending have limited value for judging relative military power. As well as including elements which have no direct impact on strength, and different prices for major elements, they often (except for NATO countries & a few others) have different coverage. Some don't include pensions at all, some include what others pay for out of separate internal or border security budgets, etc, etc. And they often exclude military aid.

 

[Grand Danois]

For weapons, yes, & if you compare only weapons purchases it doesn't matter much whether you use exchange rates or try to work out a PPP. Won't change the figures much.

But the majority of every military budget isn't for weapons, but on manpower, buildings, maintenance, etc., & those are the things which differ in price, so if you're comparing total spending, you'll get a distorted view using exchange rates. Should the fact that US military pensioners are paid more than Indian or Chinese military pensioners be taken to mean that they add more to US military effectiveness than Indian or Chinese? Because that's one of the costs in the US military budget.

Straightforward comparisons of military spending have limited value for judging relative military power. As well as including elements which have no direct impact on strength, and different prices for major elements, they often (except for NATO countries & a few others) have different coverage. Some don't include pensions at all, some include what others pay for out of separate internal or border security budgets, etc, etc. And they often exclude military aid.

I don't think there is any disagreement. I was somewhat preempting the concept that you can take the rapidly growing Chinese defense budget, project it into the future and expect that it is possible to maintain the "benefit" of a high RER (PPP advantage).

The Penn Effect works against it. As the Chinese economy grows and develops the cost of salaries, pensions and buildings will grow disproportionately in the Chinese defense budget.

Also, as I said in the previous post, the peak capabilities are also costlier as it requires imported weapons and specialised personnel in order to enable its use. These will have a RER closer to 1.

In contrast, most of the army and internal security forces will be closer to the 4.4 figure as it doesn't have these reqs to the same extent.

So the actual spending power should be adjusted by a factor between 1 and 4.4 and is currently working its way towards 1.

Lastly, I would suggest a correlation between RER and peak technological capability ie the best technology that can be developed and implemented in the numbers required.

An advanced jet developed and built in China may be cheap in nominal terms, but may represent a huge investment in PPP terms, if it is too far ahead of the technological and economic base. You simply do not get the same value spending PPP dollars.

 

[swerve]

I don't think there is any disagreement. I was somewhat preempting the concept that you can take the rapidly growing Chinese defense budget, project it into the future and expect that it is possible to maintain the "benefit" of a high RER (PPP advantage).

The Penn Effect works against it. As the Chinese economy grows and develops the cost of salaries, pensions and buildings will grow disproportionately in the Chinese defense budget.

Also, as I said in the previous post, the peak capabilities are also costlier as it requires imported weapons and specialised personnel in order to enable its use. These will have a RER closer to 1.

In contrast, most of the army and internal security forces will be closer to the 4.4 figure as it doesn't have these reqs to the same extent.

So the actual spending power should be adjusted by a factor between 1 and 4.4 and is currently working its way towards 1.

Lastly, I would suggest a correlation between RER and peak technological capability ie the best technology that can be developed and implemented in the numbers required.

An advanced jet developed and built in China may be cheap in nominal terms, but may represent a huge investment in PPP terms, if it is too far ahead of the technological and economic base. You simply do not get the same value spending PPP dollars.

Well, yes. As Chinese real GDP per capita gets closer to US levels, one would expect the exchange rate deviation index to reduce - wasn't it Balassa who first attempted to quantify the relationship? And Samuelson described it, long ago. Heston & Summers & their crew at Penn use that, of course. The conventional explanation relates price level to productivity in export industries, as traded goods will tend to equalise in prices. And that fits what you say about technological level & RER. We are in agreement.

By the time Chinese GDP equals total US GDP I'd expect the price differential to have roughly halved from what it is now - but that's very much an "off the top of my head" estimate. It should be easier to compare Chinese & US defence spending by then. Now, the different cost structures of the components of military expenditure make any comparison extremely difficult.

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, yes. As Chinese real GDP per capita gets closer to US levels, one would expect the exchange rate deviation index to reduce - wasn't it Balassa who first attempted to quantify the relationship? And Samuelson described it, long ago. Heston & Summers & their crew at Penn use that, of course. The conventional explanation relates price level to productivity in export industries, as traded goods will tend to equalise in prices. And that fits what you say about technological level & RER. We are in agreement.

I won't pretend to know these names but good that we agree.

By the time Chinese GDP equals total US GDP I'd expect the price differential to have roughly halved from what it is now - but that's very much an "off the top of my head" estimate. It should be easier to compare Chinese & US defence spending by then. Now, the different cost structures of the components of military expenditure make any comparison extremely difficult.

It sure does. It would also be quite dull if nobody put their head on the block with a qualified guess as to where China is going.

Cheers

 

[East]

There are many differences between China and US, including economy, military power, and it's a long time for China to catch up with Us, however, everything is possible.
^_^。。。。