5 ms·

Yes, they've been taking the profits and building their military at a fast rate for 20 years...to do...something.

by cronix 4y ago

Retric 4y ago
China has the 2nd largest military budget but only spends 1.7% GDP on it vs the global average of 2.2% and US at 3.5%. India the worlds 3rd largest spender is between them at 2.7% GDP, and #4 the UK spends 2.2% GDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... I may strongly dislike China, but a relative lack of military spending is one of their strengths.
- elefanten 4y ago
  Trend rapidly changing, they were focused elsewhere previously. The part that matters is what they’ll use it for (so far, signs point to authoritarian conquest of sovereign political entities)
  - Retric 4y ago
    As a share of GDP it was higher in 2019 at 1.9%, so it's growth it really a function of economic growth.
- sxg 4y ago
  What about the NATO requirement to spend 2% of GDP on defense? Isn't it strategic for the US to spend disproportionately more on the military to support allies' militaries (e.g., South Korea) and prevent the rise of competing superpowers? https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
- dwheeler 4y ago
  China has the second largest military spending in the world, second only to the US. What's more, you really need to look at purchasing power parity (PPP). Basically, it costs less to do things in China, and that really matters for military spending. For example, soldiers in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) receive far lower salaries than the equivalent US personnel. It's hard to figure out the true impact of this, but it's important to acknowledge. One article about this is here: https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-parity-matters https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-pari... - which argues that US military spending is basically equal to Russia+China once that's considered. Also, there's geography to consider. If China is attacking next-door-neighbors while the US is trying to defend an ally at long distance, it would necessarily cost the US much more. All of this makes comparing military spending much more complicated, as well as depressing. It's my hope that military adventurism will be avoided.
  - naniwaduni 4y ago
    I'm not sure the past ten months have been the greatest time for the argument that Russia gets almost a third of the US's military value after adjusting for PPP.
    - dwheeler 4y ago
      It's the data I had easily available. While the amount of spending money has an effect, wisely spending the money pre-war and wisely executing war plans is obviously critical. Russia is demonstrating the weakness from widespread corruption (they got stuck on roads because they did not invest in logistics and on maintaining their vehicles), combined with spectacularly poor planning in the initial attack. It would be unwise to assume China will make such mistakes. Anyway, it is my hope that war does not break out. The one guarantee about war is many deaths.
- roamerz 4y ago
  That 1.7% that China spends is probably equivalent (or more) to the 3.5% that the US spends. China steals the intellectual property that the US pays for. China takes advantage of lax environmental and green energy laws the the US military and supporting businesses must conform to. China takes advantage of near slave labor to build it’s weapons of war. It’s much economical for China to wage war than the United States.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > China has the 2nd largest military budget but only spends 1.7% GDP on it Not really sure that comparisons of either GDP or state spending on a purpose as a share of it (even if GDP were comparable) are as meaningful as people pretend across regimes with vastly different degrees of state/industry integration both generally (because of effect on GDP measures) or in the field of interest (because of effects on spending measures.) Unfortunately, there's not good alternative measures, either.

Yes, they've been taking the profits and building their military at a fast rate for 20 years...to do...something.

by cronix 4y ago

Yes, they've been taking the profits and building their military at a fast rate for 20 years...to do...something.

China has the 2nd largest military budget but only spends 1.7% GDP on it vs the global average of 2.2% and US at 3.5%. India the worlds 3rd largest spender is between them at 2.7% GDP, and #4 the UK spends 2.2% GDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... I may strongly dislike China, but a relative lack of military spending is one of their strengths.

elefanten 4y ago
Trend rapidly changing, they were focused elsewhere previously. The part that matters is what they’ll use it for (so far, signs point to authoritarian conquest of sovereign political entities)
- Retric 4y ago
  As a share of GDP it was higher in 2019 at 1.9%, so it's growth it really a function of economic growth.
sxg 4y ago
What about the NATO requirement to spend 2% of GDP on defense? Isn't it strategic for the US to spend disproportionately more on the military to support allies' militaries (e.g., South Korea) and prevent the rise of competing superpowers? https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
dwheeler 4y ago
China has the second largest military spending in the world, second only to the US. What's more, you really need to look at purchasing power parity (PPP). Basically, it costs less to do things in China, and that really matters for military spending. For example, soldiers in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) receive far lower salaries than the equivalent US personnel. It's hard to figure out the true impact of this, but it's important to acknowledge. One article about this is here: https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-parity-matters https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-pari... - which argues that US military spending is basically equal to Russia+China once that's considered. Also, there's geography to consider. If China is attacking next-door-neighbors while the US is trying to defend an ally at long distance, it would necessarily cost the US much more. All of this makes comparing military spending much more complicated, as well as depressing. It's my hope that military adventurism will be avoided.
- naniwaduni 4y ago
  I'm not sure the past ten months have been the greatest time for the argument that Russia gets almost a third of the US's military value after adjusting for PPP.
  - dwheeler 4y ago
    It's the data I had easily available. While the amount of spending money has an effect, wisely spending the money pre-war and wisely executing war plans is obviously critical. Russia is demonstrating the weakness from widespread corruption (they got stuck on roads because they did not invest in logistics and on maintaining their vehicles), combined with spectacularly poor planning in the initial attack. It would be unwise to assume China will make such mistakes. Anyway, it is my hope that war does not break out. The one guarantee about war is many deaths.
roamerz 4y ago
That 1.7% that China spends is probably equivalent (or more) to the 3.5% that the US spends. China steals the intellectual property that the US pays for. China takes advantage of lax environmental and green energy laws the the US military and supporting businesses must conform to. China takes advantage of near slave labor to build it’s weapons of war. It’s much economical for China to wage war than the United States.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> China has the 2nd largest military budget but only spends 1.7% GDP on it Not really sure that comparisons of either GDP or state spending on a purpose as a share of it (even if GDP were comparable) are as meaningful as people pretend across regimes with vastly different degrees of state/industry integration both generally (because of effect on GDP measures) or in the field of interest (because of effects on spending measures.) Unfortunately, there's not good alternative measures, either.