4 ms·

China Military spending 2019: $261 billion, or 1.9% GDP US Military spending in 2019: $732 billion, or 3.4% GDP China leapfrogged the U.S. by spending a littl

China Military spending 2019: $261 billion, or 1.9% GDP US Military spending in 2019: $732 billion, or 3.4% GDP China leapfrogged the U.S. by spending a little less than one third of what the US squandered. Just let that sink in. Oh and you know what China really is spending its money on, instead of militarized local police forces? Research. China R&D spending in 2018: 4.11% of GDP. U.S. R&D spending in 2016 and max ever spent: 2.7% GDP

oefrha 6y ago
“China leapfrogged the U.S. ...” Or maybe not and this is just pentagon propaganda to suck up more funding.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  The US army doesn't need more funding, it needs less waste, and so do the European armies. The inefficiencies in how armaments are produced and procured are a large part of that: due to political pressure (every state wants a slice of the pie) the manufacture of the Eurofighter (and all other Airbus/EADS products) is spread across the continent instead of one place.
nickff 6y ago
China has not “leapfrogged the US military”, you are comparing dissimilar numbers. If you want to compare the real power of a navy, you’re better off comparing warship tonnages, while taking into account the force-multiplier effect of forward operating bases. China has many, smaller ships than the USA, and far less power projection capability, especially when it comes to naval aviation.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  "Far less power projection capability" That is an important point. It is a strategic objective of the US to be able project massive military power any place in the world. However that is not the case for China (as it is now). China's main strategic goal is secure access to the pacific ocean (even if it is met with an American naval blockade). It is obvious to me that that goal is much cheaper than the American goal.
  - nickff 6y ago
    China does not have secure access to the Pacific Ocean; U.S. attack submarines and air-launched anti-ship missiles mean that Chinese ships are at risk as soon as they leave the South China Sea, or possibly even port. I think the Chinese objective is to have enough power to deny U.S. access to the South China Sea, and perhaps the sea of Japan. They also want to be able to project power in the case of more limited conflicts, such as civil wars in Africa or the Middle East.
    - throwaway4good 6y ago
      The wikipedia on the first island chain has a summation of the US military strategy in the South China Sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain I think it is a given at this point that the US will loose supremacy in the area because of the size of the Chinese economy and the fact that the South China Sea is their home-turf.
RachelF 6y ago
China spends a lot in the US, too. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Boeing all sell lots to the PLA. We are arming our enemies.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  I’m not sure they really count as enemies when we are so economically integrated. It’s more like the nations are two bickering heads on a Cerberus.
- consumer451 6y ago
  Do you have links showing these sales? I wouldn’t be shocked, but it is a strong claim.
smabie 6y ago
The Chinese military has not leapfrogged the US military. China has the largest military in the world, but that hasn't meant much in a long-time. The US has by far the most advanced and sophisticated weaponry of any military and that level of sophistication can hardly be captured by pure statistics alone. And while as a non-expert I can't confidently comment on the advantages and drawbacks of sophistication vs pure manpower/number of units, I wouldn't be surprised if in today's geopolitical environment the former is more important than the later. Though I think it's likely that the US approach is more about reducing casualties in order to lower the political barrier to war than anything else. After all, in a democracy you lose a war when the people are no longer willing to support it anymore. China doesn't have this problem and continue fighting regardless of the number of deaths sustained.
Reimersholme 6y ago
Chinas increased investments in R&D are impressive, but where did you get the number 4.11% for 2018? As far as I'm aware, so far they've never even reached their target of 2.5% R&D spending per year. "China continued its yearslong run of double-digit percentage increases in spending on R&D in 2019, but the nation is likely to fall short of a long-standing goal of increasing R&D expenditures to 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by this year." https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/china-again-boosts-rd-spending-more-10 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/china-again-boosts-r...

oefrha 6y ago

“China leapfrogged the U.S. ...” Or maybe not and this is just pentagon propaganda to suck up more funding.

mschuster91 6y ago
The US army doesn't need more funding, it needs less waste, and so do the European armies. The inefficiencies in how armaments are produced and procured are a large part of that: due to political pressure (every state wants a slice of the pie) the manufacture of the Eurofighter (and all other Airbus/EADS products) is spread across the continent instead of one place.

nickff 6y ago

China has not “leapfrogged the US military”, you are comparing dissimilar numbers. If you want to compare the real power of a navy, you’re better off comparing warship tonnages, while taking into account the force-multiplier effect of forward operating bases. China has many, smaller ships than the USA, and far less power projection capability, especially when it comes to naval aviation.

throwaway4good 6y ago
"Far less power projection capability" That is an important point. It is a strategic objective of the US to be able project massive military power any place in the world. However that is not the case for China (as it is now). China's main strategic goal is secure access to the pacific ocean (even if it is met with an American naval blockade). It is obvious to me that that goal is much cheaper than the American goal.
- nickff 6y ago
  China does not have secure access to the Pacific Ocean; U.S. attack submarines and air-launched anti-ship missiles mean that Chinese ships are at risk as soon as they leave the South China Sea, or possibly even port. I think the Chinese objective is to have enough power to deny U.S. access to the South China Sea, and perhaps the sea of Japan. They also want to be able to project power in the case of more limited conflicts, such as civil wars in Africa or the Middle East.
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    The wikipedia on the first island chain has a summation of the US military strategy in the South China Sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain I think it is a given at this point that the US will loose supremacy in the area because of the size of the Chinese economy and the fact that the South China Sea is their home-turf.

RachelF 6y ago

China spends a lot in the US, too. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Boeing all sell lots to the PLA. We are arming our enemies.

shajznnckfke 6y ago
I’m not sure they really count as enemies when we are so economically integrated. It’s more like the nations are two bickering heads on a Cerberus.
consumer451 6y ago
Do you have links showing these sales? I wouldn’t be shocked, but it is a strong claim.

smabie 6y ago

The Chinese military has not leapfrogged the US military. China has the largest military in the world, but that hasn't meant much in a long-time. The US has by far the most advanced and sophisticated weaponry of any military and that level of sophistication can hardly be captured by pure statistics alone. And while as a non-expert I can't confidently comment on the advantages and drawbacks of sophistication vs pure manpower/number of units, I wouldn't be surprised if in today's geopolitical environment the former is more important than the later. Though I think it's likely that the US approach is more about reducing casualties in order to lower the political barrier to war than anything else. After all, in a democracy you lose a war when the people are no longer willing to support it anymore. China doesn't have this problem and continue fighting regardless of the number of deaths sustained.

Reimersholme 6y ago

Chinas increased investments in R&D are impressive, but where did you get the number 4.11% for 2018? As far as I'm aware, so far they've never even reached their target of 2.5% R&D spending per year. "China continued its yearslong run of double-digit percentage increases in spending on R&D in 2019, but the nation is likely to fall short of a long-standing goal of increasing R&D expenditures to 2.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by this year." https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/china-again-boosts-rd-spending-more-10 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/china-again-boosts-r...