I think it is a little scary. I understand pumping up defenses but they are clearly pumping up offensive military. Many people are worried about Twian. China has wanted Twian for a very long time.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/25/china.military/index.html




Story Highlights• Beijing modernizing force, strategy, according to report to Congress
• Development "will increase Beijing's options for military coercion," report says
• Army gaining capability to fight high-tech adversaries
• Successful missile tests of particular concern, Pentagon says

Adjust font size:
(CNN) -- China's modernizing military will make it a more muscular player in world events, a U.S. Defense Department report says.

China's developing capabilities "will increase Beijing's options for military coercion to press diplomatic advantage, advance interests or resolve disputes," the Pentagon says in its annual report to Congress on China.

The Pentagon says that Beijing remains preoccupied with military contingencies in the Taiwan Strait -- but adds that the Chinese military is also improving its ability to win possible conflicts over resources or territory. (Watch how China has become a modern, high-tech adversary )

To that end, the report says, the Chinese army is transforming itself from a force designed to fight wars of attrition on its own territory to one capable of winning short but intense campaigns against high-tech adversaries.

It says China's military expansion is in part designed to protect its access to raw materials around the world, especially coal and oil supplies. At present, the report says, "China can neither protect its foreign energy supplies, nor the routes on which they travel."

The report notes key developments such as China's testing of an antisatellite missile in January and the greater accuracy and range of its missile forces, including intercontinental ballistic missiles.

"New air- and ground-launched cruise missiles that could perform nuclear missions will similarly improve the survivability and flexibility of China's nuclear forces," it adds.

It also says that China continues to modernize its Navy with better air-defense systems and new submarines, while its offensive air power has been improved with the acquisition of Su-30 strike aircraft and F-10 fighters.

Military spending continues to grow more quickly than the expansion of the economy, with Beijing announcing an increase of nearly 18 percent in its defense budget in March.

Looking at the situation with Taiwan, the report says the balance of forces continues to shift in the mainland's favor, with military exercises and deployments contributing to an atmosphere of intimidation. The report adds that tension could also increase as Taiwan prepares for its next presidential election, planned for March 2008.

Despite the pace of modernization, the report says, the People's Liberation Army remains untested in modern warfare and most of China's leaders lack military experience.

That gives rise to a greater potential for miscalculations, according to the report, which "would be equally catastrophic whether based on advice from operationally inexperienced commanders or from 'scientific' combat models."

Old news, I've been saying stuff like this for years now, dammit.


China's developing capabilities "will increase Beijing's options for military coercion to press diplomatic advantage, advance interests or resolve disputes," the Pentagon says in its annual report to Congress on China.

This is interesting. China will increase in strength in order to have more muscle diplomatically. I've been in a major argument with PaulC and I did point out that if the Euroweenies do not have any kind of muscle to back up its diplomacy, how are their negotiations and diplomacy going to bear any kind of weight? The Chi-Coms have learned that military might gives them greater leverage at the bargaining table, when will the Euroweenies do the same?

Warrior, you sure picked a creative way to spell "Taiwan".

But they HAVE to defend themselves in other peoples countries...like the US silly...its defensive, am I right?

Military spendings for 2007:
$532 billion in the United States.
$45 billion in China.

Even Japan has a bigger military budget, than China. While USA spends more money on military than all countries in the world together. What kind of threat from China are we talking about lol?

Warrior, you sure picked a creative way to spell "Taiwan".
It's even in the article.

Military spendings for 2007:
$532 billion in the United States.
$45 billion in China.

Even Japan has a bigger military budget, than China. While USA spends more money on military than all countries in the world together. What kind of threat from China are we talking about lol?
Japan does not. And the US may spend way more than all others but not all of them combined.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

Also take into account China's lack of reporting certain things (or lies) to create a facade.

Also take into account China's lack of reporting certain things (or lies) to create a facade.
Everybody does so.

Everybody does so.
I don't think Trinidad and Tobago are in the business of artificially enlarging their military budget on paper. Also the US might have less reason to do so, as the truth of its size surpasses the others so much that it serves as enough intimidation. And given China's state, I don't tend to trust their government--especially not with Taiwan and Japan nearby.

I don't think Trinidad and Tobago are in the business of artificially enlarging their military budget on paper. Also the US might have less reason to do so, as the truth of its size surpasses the others so much that it serves as enough intimidation. And given China's state, I don't tend to trust their government--especially not with Taiwan and Japan nearby.
Enlarging, hmm? What's the point of enlarging military budget on paper? I thought you ment that chinese decrease military spendings in order to hide the real figures which might be much and much more.

Anyway, i don't think Beijing is going to play the chechen scenario with Taiwan. They would likely do that if there was a real threat of distribution of separatism all over China. I'm sure they'll find some economical method.

And what about Japan? China is threating Japan?

Enlarging, hmm? What's the point of enlarging military budget on paper? I thought you ment that chinese decrease military spendings in order to hide the real figures which might be much and much more.
A small island nation like Trinidad and Tobago would likely find itself wanting to say they spend more than 1,000 dollars on their own people's protection. China is in a different situation where it might be spending twice of what they tell us on the war machine or possibly more, which would be fudging the numbers to make them deceivingly small.
Anyway, i don't think Beijing is going to play the chechen scenario with Taiwan. They would likely do that if there was a real threat of distribution of separatism all over China. I'm sure they'll find some economical method.

And what about Japan? China is threating Japan?
While firefights with Taiwan are highly unlikely (as Taiwan would be crushed in a matter of a short moment), and there are no "fighting words" with Japan oft exchanged, the motivation of China's military to get better to threaten their enemies (perhaps into business openness, as with Koizumi's and Abe's recent stance toward Beijing) and be prepared to later flex a muscle in the midst of Russia and the US's military. Though you are correct, as the future of China is likely money wars rather than those with firearms, as with much of the world.

Military spendings for 2007:
$532 billion in the United States.
$45 billion in China.

Even Japan has a bigger military budget, than China. While USA spends more money on military than all countries in the world together. What kind of threat from China are we talking about lol?

True but the U.S. spends $5-$10 for every $1 that China would spend on defense development. IOW - a U.S. top-of-the-line fighter costs $100-250 million (F-22 comes to mind) where a top-line Chinese fighter costs $25-$50 million. And before you go there, YES, possibly the U.S. product will be better but rest assured, the chinese version will not be a piece of junk - it will get the job of killing done nicely.

It's called under-staffing and over-bugeting.

So that skews the numbers considerably.

Also, a great deal of our military budget is spent on crap that doesn't work, never will work and was no more than a smokescreen to allow certain defense contractors to feed on the the U.S. tax payers - no questions asked. Missle shield comes to mind.

Make no mistake about it ... within 20 years, China will be the major superpower in the world. Possibly the only superpower.

Dop, that's because all of their stuff is "Made in China".

It's cheaper, but it also breaks after the first 5 minutes you use it.


Also, I think it would make sense for them to keep most of their spending and growth secret, at least until they are able to compete with the US. Then, by the time we try to change things, the horse will be out of the barn.

Dop, that's because all of their stuff is "Made in China".

It's cheaper, but it also breaks after the first 5 minutes you use it.


Also, I think it would make sense for them to keep most of their spending and growth secret, at least until they are able to compete with the US. Then, by the time we try to change things, the horse will be out of the barn.

You don't buy fighter planes at Wal Mart :D

And you aren't old enough to remember when the label made in Japan was a kiss of death for a product and now Japan is unparrelled in manufacturing and they make the best of just about everything. Times change.

Make no mistake about it ... within 20 years, China will be the major superpower in the world. Possibly the only superpower. And their population control incentives which have made the male to female ratio vastly different will make their army of unattached soldiers huge.
And you aren't old enough to remember when the label made in Japan was a kiss of death for a product and now Japan is unparrelled in manufacturing and they make the best of just about everything. Times change.

Yeah, just ask Britain.

True but the U.S. spends $5-$10 for every $1 that China would spend on defense development. IOW - a U.S. top-of-the-line fighter costs $100-250 million (F-22 comes to mind) where a top-line Chinese fighter costs $25-$50 million. And before you go there, YES, possibly the U.S. product will be better but rest assured, the chinese version will not be a piece of junk - it will get the job of killing done nicely. So China is a threat because the US military-congressional-industrial complex is bloated? Perhaps people should be concerned with our own spending, first and foremost, instead of China's.
And the US may spend way more than all others but not all of them combined. pretty damn close to it...

Rest-of-World [all but USA] $500 billion
United States $466 billion

Oh and yes we do, because these figures only include 2003 spending, a year when the US went to war at the end of march. The figure is much higher for every year after that.

Oh and yes we do, because these figures only include 2003 spending, a year when the US went to war at the end of march. The figure is much higher for every year after that.
War spending supplements and the budgets are not the same thing. If the budget has risen from 466 billion, show me.

Bah, the footnote on the bottom of your link are confuseing but the way I read it is that it is expenditures. I thought that the 2004 request was based on the 2003 use (which it was) but then the actual amount spent through seperate requests was factored in. I had assumed that actual 2004 spending would be higher since the war was only for 9 months of 2003. I think I read it wrong. Your link is spending, not budget.

So China is a threat because the US military-congressional-industrial complex is bloated? Perhaps people should be concerned with our own spending, first and foremost, instead of China's.
pretty damn close to it...


That wasn't the point ... here it is again....

We may spend a half-trillion but we get only a fraction of that in goods. Therefore, if China is getting dollar ... er yuan to yuan in product then one can't make a parallel for comparison unless one applies the US:China ratio to the formula.

To say we outspend China 25:1 (or whatever) would be correct but to say we out-develop our military 25:1 to China would be totally incorrect and false. PERIOD.

Also, I think it would make sense for them to keep most of their spending and growth secret, at least until they are able to compete with the US. Then, by the time we try to change things, the horse will be out of the barn.

How many weapons we have up our sleeve or China has up their sleeve doesn't even come into play.

Both countries are now nuclear which means we are in a MAD (Mutual assured destruction) situation with China (and others). If they fire one or we fire one or Russia fires one or Britian fires one or India or Pakistan or Israel ... we all die in a matter of days and probably in a matter of hours.

IOW -- US and China are considered equal in military destructive power whether we like it or not. You can only kill the people once. Having enough weapons to do it several times is a moot point.

That's why MAD worked so well for so many years.

We may spend a half-trillion but we get only a fraction of that in goods. Therefore, if China is getting dollar ... er yuan to yuan in product then one can't make a parallel for comparison unless one applies the US:China ratio to the formula.

To say we outspend China 25:1 (or whatever) would be correct but to say we out-develop our military 25:1 to China would be totally incorrect and false. PERIOD.You are assuming China doesn't spend money on failed weapons systems or dead-end R & D like we do. I'm sure they have a military/industrial complex that is wasteful as well -- 'tis the nature of the beast.

You are assuming China doesn't spend money on failed weapons systems or dead-end R & D like we do. I'm sure they have a military/industrial complex that is wasteful as well -- 'tis the nature of the beast.

BULL -- I'm willing to bet that a factory worker (or engineer or designer) that gets caught slacking in China will no longer be working in that position.

Here, in the u.s., you're damn near rewarded for f'ckng off during work hours.

Then there's the problem of hiring x amount of whites, y amounts of blacks, z amounts of hispanics, this many veterans, this many of those and so forth. Forget about whether the person can do the job ... friggin' hire them to meet federal guidelines which come under scrutiny for every company that has defense contracts.

Or how about good old Joe over in the corner that's been with the company for 30 years and has grown into a complete useless pile of crap yet the company keeps him just because he's one of the good old boys. Don't look for old Joe to be productive or do anything meanigful for the company.

How about the high cost of health care and other benefits which the companies dish out for the employees ... it all comes out of the contract they're working on which helps drive up the cost even more.

Man, there are a ton of reasons why the Chinese or any civilized country can outbuild americans today in terms of dollars per product. They don't have the deck stacked against them like we do.

Then look around at the outsoucing ... there's a reason for it.

BULL -- But China's military-industrial complex suffers from a number of shortcomings. It is one of the most technologically backwards defense industries; until recently, most indigenously developed weapons systems were at least 20 years behind the West – basically comparable to 1970s or 1980s-era technology – and quality control was consistently poor. Similarly, China's defense research and development (R&D) base was long viewed to be deficient in several critical areas, including aeronautics, propulsion (such as jet engines), microelectronics, computers, avionics, sensors and seekers, electronic warfare, and advanced materials. [1] Furthermore, the Chinese have traditionally been weak in the area of systems integration – that is, the ability to design and develop a piece of military equipment that integrates hundreds or even thousands of disparate components and subsystems and have it to function effectively as a single unit. Consequently, China's defense industry has often experienced difficulties "translating theory and design into reliable weapon systems." [2]

Exacerbating these technical deficiencies has been a number of structural and organizational problems that traditionally afflict the Chinese military-industrial complex. Overall, arms production in China has largely been an inefficient, wasteful, and unprofitable affair. China's defense sector has long been plagued by excess capacity – quite simply, the country possesses too many workers, factories, and assembly lines, resulting in redundancy, inefficient production, and underutilized resources. Military R&D programs have often experienced considerable delays due to inadequate funding, while production runs were small and sporadic.

Finally, China's military-industrial complex has long functioned under an organizational and managerial culture that, in a manner typical of most state-owned enterprises (SOEs), was often highly centralized, hierarchical, bureaucratic, and risk-averse. [3] This, in turn, stymied innovation, retarded R&D, and further added to programmatic delays. Consequently, production management has often been highly centralized and personality-centric, under the leadership of a single chief engineer or director, while lower-level managers tended to be "conformist, adhering to standard rules and procedures rather than to personal judgments based on their professional experiences." [4]


http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=499

Haha, Dop got owned.

But China's military-industrial complex suffers from a number of shortcomings. It is one of the most technologically backwards defense industries; until recently, most indigenously developed weapons systems were at least 20 years behind the West – basically comparable to 1970s or 1980s-era technology – and quality control was consistently poor. Similarly, China's defense research and development (R&D) base was long viewed to be deficient in several critical areas, including aeronautics, propulsion (such as jet engines), microelectronics, computers, avionics, sensors and seekers, electronic warfare, and advanced materials. [1] Furthermore, the Chinese have traditionally been weak in the area of systems integration – that is, the ability to design and develop a piece of military equipment that integrates hundreds or even thousands of disparate components and subsystems and have it to function effectively as a single unit. Consequently, China's defense industry has often experienced difficulties "translating theory and design into reliable weapon systems." [2]

Exacerbating these technical deficiencies has been a number of structural and organizational problems that traditionally afflict the Chinese military-industrial complex. Overall, arms production in China has largely been an inefficient, wasteful, and unprofitable affair. China's defense sector has long been plagued by excess capacity – quite simply, the country possesses too many workers, factories, and assembly lines, resulting in redundancy, inefficient production, and underutilized resources. Military R&D programs have often experienced considerable delays due to inadequate funding, while production runs were small and sporadic.

Finally, China's military-industrial complex has long functioned under an organizational and managerial culture that, in a manner typical of most state-owned enterprises (SOEs), was often highly centralized, hierarchical, bureaucratic, and risk-averse. [3] This, in turn, stymied innovation, retarded R&D, and further added to programmatic delays. Consequently, production management has often been highly centralized and personality-centric, under the leadership of a single chief engineer or director, while lower-level managers tended to be "conformist, adhering to standard rules and procedures rather than to personal judgments based on their professional experiences." [4]


http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=499


I could have sworn this article ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6691691.stm

says the U.S. is concerned and fears China's military buildup ...

Well, maybe Sedan and the Turkish Weekly should get together and inform the pentagon they have nothing to worry about, that nothing China has works and everything is equivalent to 20-30 years old.

ROTFLMAO

I could have sworn this article ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6691691.stm

says the U.S. is concerned and fears China's military buildup ...I could have sworn I wasn't arguing that China is a paper tiger. I was taking issue with your belief that China is getting "yuan for yuan" out of what it spends on defense. My point is that there is waste and inefficiency in the Chinese military/industrial complex just as we have in our own. You called BULL on that (why, I do not know) and I proved you wrong. So now you have to pretend I was arguing something entirely different -- but I wasn't, and you know that and everyone reading this also knows that.Well, maybe Sedan and the Turkish Weekly should get together and inform the pentagon they have nothing to worry about, that nothing China has works and everything is equivalent to 20-30 years old.
The footnotes referred to in the excerpt I posted are as follows:

1. Paul H.B. Godwin and Bernard D. Cole, "Advanced Military Technology and the PLA: Priorities and Capabilities for the 21st Century," in Larry M. Wortzel, ed., The Chinese Armed Forces in the 21st Century (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 1999), pp. 159-215.
2. Mark A. Stokes, China's Strategic Modernization: Implications for the United States (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 1999), p. 136.
3. Harlan Jencks, "COSTIND is Dead, Long Live COSTIND! Restructuring China's Defense Scientific, Technical, and Industrial Sector," in James C. Mulvenon and Richard H. Yang, eds., The People's Liberation Army in the Information Age (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1999), p. 62.
4. Yuko Arayama and Panos Mourdoukoutas, China Against Herself: Innovation or Imitation in Global Business? (Westport, CT: Quorum, 1999), p. 73.

The author of the piece I quoted (which was not written by the Turkish Weekly), is Richard A. Bitzinger. A short biography of him can be found here (http://www.uscc.gov/bios/2006bios/06_03_16_17bios/richard_bitzinger.php).

So it is hardly just myself and the Turkish Weekly who think the Chinese may not get as much bang for the yuan as you do.ROTFLMAOROFLCOPTER!!!1

Sedan now knows why I have this avatar. It's because Dop posts.

says the U.S. is concerned and fears China's military buildup ... its because the US government is filled with a bunch of ninny's that get their panties in a wad over anti-war protesters...they shit themselves at the thought of an actual war with a country that hasn't been disarmed first....

I could have sworn I wasn't arguing that China is a paper tiger. I was taking issue with your belief that China is getting "yuan for yuan" out of what it spends on defense. My point is that there is waste and inefficiency in the Chinese military/industrial complex just as we have in our own. You called BULL on that (why, I do not know) and I proved you wrong. So now you have to pretend I was arguing something entirely different -- but I wasn't, and you know that and everyone reading this also knows that.


You foolishly posted the Turkish Weekly article that point blank says China makes 30 year old junk. Therefore you take ownership of the premise of the article which is china is a paper tiger. How can you deny that was your intent is beyond me.

Now, why is it china suffers nothing on the cost end of inefficiency, cost overruns and bad product? The U.S. openly admits that is why our military product is so expensive. We spend 5 times what it should take to build nearly everything. Yet China feels no such impacts. She, according to you and the Turkish article, f-up everything they touch and yet there is no penalty. A piece of military hardare costs the same regarless of how much effort or lack of effort goes in the design and build. This is the part I want you to explain to me.

Further, many american technology companies are now in china so don't think they don't have access to the latest technology. Add to that, they purchase some of russia's top notch stuff - ever hear of reverse engineering?

It's not the same old china and I stand by what I said ... 20 years from now china will be the most powerful country in the world in all respects.

Times change.

You foolishly posted the Turkish Weekly article that point blank says China makes 30 year old junk.Actually, that isn't what the article says, not even the excerpt I posted. Let's take this sentence as an example: It is one of the most technologically backwards defense industries; until recently, most indigenously developed weapons systems were at least 20 years behind the West – basically comparable to 1970s or 1980s-era technology – and quality control was consistently poor. Please take note of where the author is speaking in the past tense. Apparently you missed those before making your '30 year old junk' claim. I think it is also probable you did not read the rest of the article. Let's look at some more, shall we?

Despite making little progress on reforming itself, the Chinese defense industry is booming. Production and sales are up 19 percent and 14 percent, respectively, in 2001 – and China's military-industrial complex technically broke even in 2002, after eight straight years of losses. The missile and shipbuilding sectors have been particularly profitable in recent years. [8]

China's defense industry has also begun manufacturing several new types of advanced weapons systems, including the fourth-generation J-10 fighter, an improved version of its FB-7 fighter-bomber, the HQ-9 long-range surface-to-air missile, the Song-class diesel-electric submarine, and the Type-052C destroyer (which incorporates low-observable features and a rudimentary Aegis-type phased-array radar into its design). Moreover, the quality and capabilities of Chinese weaponry has also apparently improved. The Song-class submarine, for example, is outfitted with a skewed propeller for improved quieting and is capable of carrying an encapsulated anti-ship cruise missile that can be launched underwater.

Much of this progress, however, seems to have been made despite the new defense industry reforms rather than because of them. Many of the so-called successes in generating new-generation weapon systems actually have their genesis in design and development decisions made years, even decades, ago – that is, long before the reforms of the late 1990s were inaugurated. In other words, these weapons programs were already in the pipeline and on schedule to enter production in the late 1990s and first years of the 21st century. The most recent reform efforts may have helped to accelerate or expand production of these weapons systems, but they certainly did not play any role in their initiation.

Rising defense spending also likely had much to do with the recent expansion in Chinese arms production. China's defense budget has more than doubled since the late 1990s, with an increase in the procurement budget alone from $3.1 billion to $6.9 billion per year between 1997 and 2002. (This does not account for hidden spending on R&D and arms imports, which together is likely another $2 billion annually.) It could be argued, therefore, that simply throwing more money at the defense industry has had a considerable impact – through increasing procurement and therefore production, and by providing more funds for R&D.

Overall, though, it appears that Beijing's strategy regarding its defense sector is still mainly to muddle through with arms production, with some minor structural changes and a healthy increase in defense spending. While this has resulted in some technological breakthroughs in weapons R&D and production, China's military-industrial complex remains in many respects an inefficient and less-than-optimal model. This will continue to exert a drag on the Chinese military modernization process and make it harder for the PLA to close technology and capability gaps with its rivals.


Now, does this sound to you like the author is saying China only makes 30 year old junk? Simply stated, Dop, the premise of your argument is entirely false.Therefore you take ownership of the premise of the article which is china is a paper tiger.We get to make new rules as we go along?

OK, here's mine: you misrepresent my argument, you lose. How can you deny that was your intent is beyond me.Then it is beyond you. I have clearly stated what my argument is, twice now in fact. Your problem is that you wish to argue with something I never said -- and now you've reached the point of saying I must not have meant what I said and must really have meant something else. Tactics like this make your argument look less than convincing, even foolish.It's not the same old china and I stand by what I said ... 20 years from now china will be the most powerful country in the world in all respects.That very well may be, Dop.

Problem is, I never suggested otherwise.

Your argument about the article being past tense holds no water. That's an afterthought, plain and simple. It would make no sense whatsoever to post a past tense article when the discussion is about China's current capabilities. No sense at all.