China spends a mere 1.9% of its GDP in 2016 and that number is smaller than from Vietnam, Korea, India even Singapore [0]. To me China is only trying catching up its neighbors.
BTW Japan's PM has just submitted his 2018 Military Budget and if approved would be the 6th "straight annual increase" [1].
[0]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2...
[1]: https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/whats-in-japans-record-2018-...
Disclaimer: I'm Chinese.
"The Chinese, for example, do not count their research-and-development expenditures, the considerable amount they pay for foreign military purchases, the huge subsidies for their defense industry (which is composed mostly of enterprises owned by the state), or their spending on the Chinese coast guard despite many of their “maritime law enforcement” ships being in effect naval vessels"
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/united-states-defense...
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/hy-chinas-military-budge...
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/05/23/5-things-the-pentagon-is...
So we take the number in the middle ($150 billion) and assume it's always a 50% undercut (extremely inaccurate estimate), this will put China's 2016 budget to 1.92%*1.5=2.88%, still lower than Singapore's.
Singapore could spend it's whole GDP on the military and China can still wipe it off the face of the Earth :/
Look to all of human history and you'll find your answer.
Why should length of rule be such a large part of my opinion of him? Well, let's pick a different leader. Suppose Trump wanted to change the US Constitution so that he could remain president for an unlimited time. Would that set off alarm bells for you? It would for me.
Why would it set off alarm bells? Because that leader thinks that he needs more time in office than the rules allow, and is willing to alter the rules to do what he wants.
Also, why does he want it? One option is that he thinks that the country needs his leadership, his in particular - nobody else can do it, it has to be him. Such people have an inflated view of their own importance and competence, and a diminished sense of others' importance and competence. That often doesn't end well - the leader thinks they have no need to listed to anyone else.
The other option for "why do they think they need it" is worse - they just want the power, and are willing to remove all obstacles to get and keep it. The point of their power is to keep their power, not what is good for the country. That usually works out badly for the country.
China's GDP is several times bigger[1] than Vietnam, Korea, India, and Singapore, so spending a smaller percentage is still a larger absolute amount. Even India, the closest competitor that you listed is only 1/5 as big by GDP, and in absolute terms has a smaller military.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?order=wb...
China has always been ruled by dynasties. I don't see any specific reason why it should change under Xi. It is a wet dream of USA to bring instability to China to weaken rising dragon.
There is only one thing that reliably predicts human behavior: incentives. The incentives of the communist party are much more weakly aligned with the welfare of their people than those in democratic countries. It's as simple as that.
In the past, in order to develop a modern economy, it's been necessary for authoritarian states to relax their grip substantially. China may have found a path forward that allows them to relax substantially less than in the past, and that deeply concerns me, because it may mean that the liberalizing effects of progress are muted in that part of the world - and eventually, maybe the rest.
The exact same thing was true of the West until about 100 years ago.
India is a nuclear power. Then again so is the UK and Argentina still invaded, so maybe that's not so much of a deterrent.
Okay, that's at least two countries that killed 10000+ of their own people since WW2.
Sorry for the whataboutism but I think how each country is perceived when spending money on military is worth discussing.
Also, if Japan was Asia raping in WW2, China is China-raping now.
That being said; between the two, China today is more like Japan during WWII than Japan today is.
The PM and his party (the LDP) in coalition with the Komeito party have been trying to push that for years, without success. Mostly because the Japanese people don't seem to support it.
And to be fair, revising Article 9 and not going on a romp through the Middle East is also an option. I can see the rationale for doing so, besides right-wing nationalism on Japan's part.
That's definitely a possibility, however removing Article 9 is seen as a threat by China and might be a tactical error. Japan hasn't had any trouble building the defense force. If anything having Article 9 in place is plausible deniability for hostilities against China.
I rather think domination via trade, investment, manufacturing and economical means is more plausible because thats what they're doing right now and they have more resources and capabilities to do more.
As well, its never good to fight a land war in Asia, korea, afghanistan, vietnam, cambodia and others has demonstrated that, as from a military perspective, you would be losing lives trying to police an area where locals have a more-than-significant population advantage over you.
Modern military tactics are no longer invade via land forces with air as support but rather spread fake news via social media and watch for signs of weakness in cyber structures.
> BTW Japan's PM has just submitted his 2018 Military Budget and if approved would be the 6th "straight annual increase"
China's 2016 GDP was 11.2 Trillion USD and their Military budget was 1.9% or 212 Billion USD.
Japan's 2016 GDP was 4.9 Trillion USD and their Military budget was 0.9% or 44 Billion USD.
Japan spends 20% of what China does.
Part of Japan's military spending goes directly towards maintaining US Military Bases in Japan. Starting in 2019 they won't pay to maintain US bases AND their budget will be limited to 0.8% of GDP. (See your own article for reference)
Let's also not forget that Japanese constitution currently forbids them from using their military to settle international disputes.[0] In other words Japan can't attack or declare war on anyone and their military can only be used for defensive purposes.
> Can you elaborate more on why China's increasing military budget is a disturbing sign to you?
China is propping up North Korea[1] who launches ICBMs over Japan for fun.[2]
China and Russia are holding naval military exercises in Japan's backyard.[3]
China has been building up it's Navy.
China has become increasingly aggressive in territorial disputes with others.
China and Japan have a territorial dispute.[6]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Cons...
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/12/when-will-chi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Korean_missile_t...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/asia/china-russia-south-china...
[4] https://globalsecurityreview.com/china-rapidly-bolstering-na...
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/topic/destination/chinas-territorial...
If they successfully coax a response, we hurt our economic ties, if they dont, they get facevalue gains and reduce us foreign credibility.
Now that i think about it...im scared for taiwan
There's no scenario where China doesn't get Taiwan, unfortunately for the people there. The only question is what that's going to look like. The rest of the world will do nothing about it, other than wave their hands around frantically. When it happens (during Xi's lifetime), it's going to set a particularly terrible precedent that will encourage Russia to do more of the same in eastern Europe. If China then decides Mongolia too is part of greater China, who can really stop that? Nobody.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Au...
It may provide a distraction for further Russian expansion, but Russia clearly doesn't need any new foreign precedent to justify invading it's neighbors.
> If China then decides Mongolia too is part of greater China, who can really stop that? Nobody.
China taking Taiwan might not start a major power war (though given the history of such wars, I wouldn't dismiss it as easily as you do), but Mongolia is much more likely to (with Russia as the opposing major power.)
Russia gets expansion in Europe. China gets expansion in Asia. They agree to try to stay out of each others way. It certainly wouldn't be unusual, historically speaking, for very powerful authoritarian regimes to reach agreement on annexations of territory.
Granted, for a long time now Russia has harbored paranoia about their vast empty East, and that China might one day want to push into it. Russia is depopulating and China is overflowing with people. The comedy of the situation, is Russia having used the ethnic Russian setup premise to seize territory in Ukraine - China could use the same argument in various territories in Eastern Russia.
That said, I don't see Russia being willing to fight over Mongolia. China is already far too powerful and economically capable for them to do that. Russia could never come close to managing to hold off China in Mongolia, I think they know that. And I don't think Russia would be willing to go nuclear over Mongolia, which is what it would take to stop China if they wanted to annex the country.
People have been saying that for 69 years. I'm not saying it's a disturbing possibility, or that people shouldn't be preparing for it. But it's not as likely as you seem to think.
There's no comparison to the Crimea situation. Crimea was overwhelmingly pro-Russian, and had a strong independence streak (see: the sovereignty referendum of 1994). An amphibious invasion against a largely hostile population is an entirely different matter, and would not be pretty, even for a large power like China. There's also the small matter of the US navy and Air Force.
I also don't think the US (or Japan) are keen on moving the focus of Chinas expansion from Taiwan to the Senkakus, which is what would happen next.
There's a lot of factors at play, it's a larger issue than just comparing two mismatched militaries.
After all, one imagines that if they really put their mind to it, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea could all go nuclear in a period measured in small single-digit months. They really aren't that hard [1]. If, indeed, they aren't already effectively nuclear. (We'd probably know if they'd ever tested a weapon. We wouldn't necessarily know if they'd actually built one. If I were them, I totally would have.)
One of the interesting aspects of the whole Inevitable Rise of China narrative storyline is that it has been predicated on their continuing to develop and primarily use soft power. I tend to agree if they focused on that, they have many avenues available for major growth, if not outright exceeding the US in power, certainly by the end of the 21st century. The equations for all of that have to be reconsidered from scratch if they become a dictatorship, become subject to the whims of a single man, and decide to primarily pursue hard power. If they become outright aggressively belligerent, they are surrounded by countries powerful enough to at least put a dent in their ambitions in Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and India, all of whom are already generally US allies and would be chased into the US's arms fully by a belligerent China. China is not currently powerful enough to take on that coalition, nor is it clear to me where they would get allies for that push. (It seems unlikely that the EU would full-throatedly throw in their lot with China. Russia, other than being nuclear, isn't really a strong enough military or economic power against that sort of coalition to be the deciding factor.) Furthermore, China's internal power is IMHO more delicate than may meet the eye; if China devotes more resources into hard power internally and the middle class starts to fade, internal social unrest is going to be a major problem. Even if China manages to suppress its most overt expressions, unrest still manifests itself in many little ways.
The best move for China is slow and steady, to win the race. But if one man decides that's not fast enough, well, a lot of people could end up dying for that decision and my guess is China would still not come out on top.
[1]: https://io9.gizmodo.com/this-experiment-proved-that-anyone-c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_progra...:
> While there are currently no known plans in Japan to produce nuclear weapons, it has been argued Japan has the technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within one year if necessary, and many analysts consider it a de facto nuclear state for this reason...
> Japan has also developed the M-V three-stage solid-fuel rocket, somewhat similar in design to the U.S. LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM, giving it a missile technology base. It now has an easier-to-launch second generation solid-fuel rocket, Epsilon. Japan has experience in re-entry vehicle technology...
> In 2011, former Minister of Defense Shigeru Ishiba explicitly backed the idea of Japan maintaining the capability of nuclear latency: "I don't think Japan needs to possess nuclear weapons, but it's important to maintain our commercial reactors because it would allow us to produce a nuclear warhead in a short amount of time ... It's a tacit nuclear deterrent"
I would not expect them to have actually created a device, unless they are keeping deep under the stadium somewhere below the Akira project.
What's the point of having nuclear weapons and not telling everyone? The entire point of nuclear weapons is to deter attacks.
I thought the entire point was to kill as many birds as possible with a single stone.
"The world" as a whole is also a bit jumpy about nuclear weapons, so pulling the card out early isn't free. If for the sake of argument Taiwan does have some prototypes lying around, they must have judged the risk of a reveal greater than the reward. But that can change swiftly.
One of the questions I find most interesting, from my civilian and total outsider position, is: How developed are the world's intelligence agencies? How good are countries at successfully keeping things secret from each other? Is it theoretically possible for Taiwan to have secretly developed a prototype bomb without China covertly knowing about it? (This is an especially interesting question in that for structural reasons, Taiwan and China have means to spy on each other relatively easily.) Is it in fact the case that everybody basically knows everything about everybody, or are there many, many successfully kept secrets? What are the probabilities of discovery? What's the appetite for risk of discovery within the relevant governments? I expect from my current position that it is simply impossible to get solid answers to these questions. It also seems to me that while the world does not care for countries overtly advertising they have a bomb, the game theory for covertly making it known to certain of your enemies that you have the bomb may be quite different.
The goal is deterrence, but deterrence doesn't work if you don't have a credible threat, which means that you have to have the credible threat, and a sufficiently insane opponent may call you on it. It's the reason why China going to a dictatorship is scary... the details of the dictatorship are irrelevant, the mere fact that one man will be in charge of the military of China is intrinsically scary. This is one place where the general bias towards inaction and other problems of a committee are advantageous; history shows that an individual is much likelier to do something really stupid for really stupid reasons than any government that is run by many people, even if there is a clear leader. A committee may fail to exploit many opportunities and may in various ways run their country into the ground, or they may even engage in misguided military adventures, but they never really rise to the level of outright evil and stupidity that an individual can muster up.
For instance, if you've got a spare hour to listen, you could do worse than this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdM3ID4m38U Which contains numerous examples of Napoleon doing stupid and evil things that cost thousands of lives and burned massive piles of reputation just to benefit himself. If you do watch that video, can you imagine a world in which that Napoleon has nukes? Or, can you imagine a world in which he has them, but doesn't use them? I can't.
So, alas, no, I can't promise that some of the really stupid wargame outcomes aren't on the table now. China could previously be modeled as reasonably rational, but that's rapidly going "poof", and yeah, that means some seriously bad outcomes are on the table, and the mere fact that they are seriously ugly doesn't take them off the table.
The point is so that:
(1) You can maintain the highest ground in proliferation discussions focussed on rivals, and
(2) Reveal your own weapons quickly if the geopolitical situation shifts (either as deterrence or, should the situation shift too quickly for that, direct use to blunt an existential threat.)
> The entire point of nuclear weapons is to deter attacks.
No, it's (as with any weapon) to provide the capacity to destroy the enemy if needed.
Like any weapon, this capacity can be publicized to deter attacks, but that is not the sole purpose of the weapon, and it can't be, because deterrence cannot work if it is perceived as the sole purpose of a weapon.
The ambiguity is still a valuable deterrent, and avoids the diplomatic cost of violating the NPT in peacetime, etc. That cost would doubtlessly be less if the violator was presently facing an existential threat.
IIRC, Israel follows this strategy. Everyone knows they have nukes but they've never confirmed it.
Unfortunately Trump is no Khrushchev, and Xi is no JFK either. A terrifying scenario.
Could that be a policy plus for China? IIRC, they have wanted to reduce their export-dependence for some time, though I'm sure that they'd prefer to accomplish it is a more gradual and controlled way.
Granted, Taiwan is much militarily weaker than China, a little similar to the Ukraine-Russian relationship, but it's also a much more stable and richer state. I think what could be comparable is if Russia really was to threaten the Baltic nations.
On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget? Or does it only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?
Total speculation: the US may spend more on R&D to develop unproven ideas into functional systems (with a lot of failure and trial and error). Then Russia can follows those now-proven development paths without needing to spend nearly as much on dead ends or original research.
Kinda like this link that another user posted here: https://io9.gizmodo.com/this-experiment-proved-that-anyone-c...
AFAIK, there has always been a lot of Russian copying/mimicry of US technology, from the Tu-4 to the Buran, but little in the other direction.
Because Russia: (1) has ICBMs, which makes it a strategic global threat, even though they can't directly control territory that way, (2) because Russia has a large and capable conventional military than makes it a strong regional power threatening US interests and allies (it can't challenge the US on global force projection, which is the real driver of US military cost.)
> Or does it only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?
Soldier and suppliers being paid less is a factor, too, but the big factor in the fundamental asymmetry between what is necessary to be a regional power and what is necessary to be able to respond to threats by regional powers everywhere in the world.
Didn't want to believe it that the US government could be under Russian influence, but this move could very well prove that to some degree, or it just so happens that Trumps way of doing this aligns perfectly with their interest. On other note, people might just be reading into it too much, as it could all just be a move to, gain popularity in the US, thinking short term rather than long term.
EDIT: also recently watched a youtube video from a Google employee that says that the US government, just can't compete with big corporations for the talent pool, because government wages are limited, so yeah that certainly could be a issue for you guys.
80/20 rule - 20% of the budget gets you 80% of the capability. ofc these are not accurate percentages
not to say this doesn't happen in Russia, but everyone talks about how much excessive waste there is in the US military
like you say, cost for soldiers will be much less there
While working there, they got less than $10k annually. If they would be able to get H1B, it's my understanding they'd get at least $100k.
While a lot of folks move to commercial sector and other countries, there a lot of people staying there, despite low salaries. Doing essentially the same job that their counterparts in US are doing, quite often for 10 times less money.
Incomes and general costs related to soldiers in Russia are even lower proportionally compared to the ratio of the per capita output gap between the US and Russia. Russia doesn't take very good care of their soldiers in most regards. If you divert a higher share of your military spending to R&D and hardware, as opposed to soldiers, you could close the gap some (and the US wastes plenty of money on unnecessary things; so if Russia is more careful about that, and chooses to focus more on what they can really afford to make a dent in, they can further close the gap).
China is big. China being ran by a dictator becomes a big bully.
The Monroe Doctrine for example has never included a drive to conquer Latin America and annex it. That doctrine is about driving out European colonialism. The territorial integrity of countries in Latin America has been well served by that shield. If you're Venezuela and your entire nation has collapsed (which it has), you don't have to fear someone conquering you due to extreme weakness and annexing you: the US would never allow that and everyone knows it. Historically, at nearly any other time or place, Venezuela would get invaded and conquered while they're so extraordinarily weak (they have the largest oil reserves on earth after all).
If the US were to behave like China is already (much less what might come next), the US would be threatening to annex Toronto and Vancouver, along with Baja Mexico and the entire Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.
We don't have to wait for bad behavior out of China. They just used their military to steal territory about four times the size of Texas from their neighbors.
Here's some context for that:
One country doing terrible things intervening in other countries is not an excuse for other countries to get involved and do the same thing.
And it is guilty conscience because you know that those problematic actions netted the aggressor (the most successful ones at any rate) plenty of benefits that many people still enjoy to this day.
I don't think the world should go down this road, and there are such things as international norms. That's why when one country ignores them continually and also gains from doing so, it becomes very disadvantageous to refrain and tempting to emulate. In that regard it absolutely matters to talk about the fact that "the US did it" and still does in a another way. Same goes for China or Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
> The Monroe Doctrine was a United States policy of opposing European colonialism in the Americas beginning in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to take control of any independent state in North or South America would be viewed as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States." .... The Doctrine was issued on December 2, 1823 at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved, or were at the point of gaining, independence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires.
Doesn't sound very bully-like.
Let's not beat around the bush. This is a rising country's way of saying, I pwn my backyard (so you can't pwn it) and I will use my might to defend it. Of course the one saying that doesn't sound like a bully to himself.
Boy, what a false equivalence.
More from Wikipedia:
> The reaction in Latin America to the Monroe Doctrine was generally favorable but in some occasions suspicious. John Crow, author of The Epic of Latin America, states, "Simón Bolívar himself, still in the midst of his last campaign against the Spaniards, Santander in Colombia, Rivadavia in Argentina, Victoria in Mexico—leaders of the emancipation movement everywhere—received Monroe's words with sincerest gratitude".
This is an important point. The Monroe Doctrine wasn't a pretext to invasion and domination, it was actually assistance against those things. The people protected by it welcomed it.
Fast forward to the present day: Vietnam just hosted a US aircraft carrier, in a very symbolic move. It's not looking for China's help to drive the US out. China is in fact upping the ante in territorial disputes with its neighbors. China looks like a lot more like Japan in the 1930s than the US in the 1830s.
Nah, it was just empty posturing at the time.
Once the US had the capacity to put teeth into it (which wasn't for a long time), it became a pretext for invasion and domination, though.
Never underestimate the sheer waste and incompetence that the US Government is capable of achieving. My general model is that we get about ten cents in value for every dollar spent. So, all Russia needs to do is break even, and they would achieve close to military might of the US.
US military expenditures are also very disturbing.
Yes and no. Remember how much goes on white elephants like the F35 and the Zumwalt-class. Does China have programmes like that?
If you happen to benefit or be happy with the US-led order, say an ally or vassal (military, economic, or just ideological), then you will feel the same way, naturally. If you are not, you are not so concerned.
It doesn't make sense to compare amounts directly - labour cost (and cost of life) in Russia is way cheaper.
And if we will compare %% of GDP - for the last decade Russia is spending same percentage (or even more) compared to US.
For a country as powerful and on the rise as China is, it's remarkable how insecure the CPC are about every little thing. It's an overwhelming indication of the fragility of their power and their own sense of security about their control.
China's behavior reeks of insecurity. Here they are, this massive, extremely powerful, rapidly growing economic juggernaut, and they behave like a scared mouse about the South China Sea (as though they really needed to steal that territory from their neighbors), about Vietnam & the US (as though Vietnam could ever threaten them), about the smallest slight from Japan or South Korea (who cares). It's incredibly revealing.
Besides the obviousness of China's reactions and behavior and what it reveals, authoritarian regimes are universally wildly insecure. The people that seek authoritarian positions of power are similarly universally insecure. Take Stalin, he was like a man-child in terms of insecurity, and most dictators you can name from the last century were likewise, that includes everyone from Saddam to Putin (look at his recent tantrum performance, putting on a visual display of Russia nuking the US at his state of the nation speech, trying his best to hide vast insecurity).
and sharetea was on to something in 2016... even if the account got banned.
If you think an account is abusing HN, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look at the data. Astroturfing is a bannable offense—but we need to find evidence of it. So is using HN primarily for political, ideological, or national battle. All this is at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Overwhelmingly, though, when users here think they smell astroturfers, shills, spies, bots, and foreign agents, what they're really encountering is the diversity of opinion on this site. HN is deeply divided on most divisive issues, just like society at large is—or rather, societies, because it's a majority international site.
Most of us organize our lives to avoid having opposing opinions in our face all the time. Consequently, when we do encounter them on a site like HN which isn't siloed—i.e. doesn't have any mechanism like subreddits or follow/block—it feels bad and we resort too quickly to the belief that these other people can't possibly be posting in good faith. Mostly, though, they are. The community is just divided that way.