5 ms·

> Somewhere between 2019 and 2022, military thinkers began to understand that we are in trouble. The realization that China has a military that could potentiall

> Somewhere between 2019 and 2022, military thinkers began to understand that we are in trouble. The realization that China has a military that could potentially defeat the U.S. prompted significant concern. China’s ability to build things is a big reason why. “In purchasing power parity, [China] spends about one dollar to our 20 dollars to get to the same capability,” said Maj. Gen. Cameron Holt from the US Air Force acquisition, technology, and logistics office. We spend $20 to match China spending $1? We only spend a bit more than twice China on defense. If our spending is 20x less efficient than China's, then they're outstripping us in substantial capacity built by 10x. Do we need to talk about this? Like, urgently?

thoughtstheseus 4y ago
The U.S. military is principally an expeditionary force. It’s designed to travel far distances. Not homeland defense. The PRC is concentrated instead on its own borders. Only recently have they sought more expeditionary capabilities. The PRC is significantly safer from kinetic attacks compared to the U.S. Our military commanders recognize this and note that a conflict with the PRC would likely reach the U.S. homeland…
- hsjqllzlfkf 4y ago
  I don't understand your comment. You start by saying that the US military is an expeditionary force while the PRC isn't, but end by saying that a conflict would likely reach US homeland. Don't those two contradict each other?
  - victorbjorklund 4y ago
    No, they dont (no idea if the statements are true). I suppose what he means is that the territorial defense of China is much stronger than US which makes it less likely that US would send boots on the ground in china (because that would be suicide) while US defense is weaker making it more likely for China to try and succeed in putting boots on the ground in US.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      Why would China even want to put boots on US grounds in the first place? There's nothing to gain for them there - in contrast to other, much more lucrative places that are way easier to gain control of: - Taiwan to follow the long-held goal of reunification (and getting rid of a live example of Chinese-descent people in democracy and freedom, similar to why Putin decided to invade Ukraine) - half their neighborhood in a fight for resources such as fishing grounds or to use as a stronghold for blockades - Africa, Afghanistan and Southern America for natural resources
      - thriftwy 4y ago
        Ukraine could have gone an "democracy and freedom" route before 2014, but decided to go along with overthrowing elected governments, restricting language usage for half of its population and having private torture prisons run by far-right groups. I'm not sure why Taiwan would want to be long-term sundered from China. A hundred years from now, what would be the reasons for a separate Taiwan?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        kelipso 4y ago
        In my opinion, the only advantage of having a separate Taiwan is so China can't do force projection into the Pacific. Everything else is just political rhetoric.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        But why is it in the long-term interest of Taiwan Chinese?
        matthewdgreen 4y ago
        If you value the ability to elect your leaders and choose the direction of your society, this question answers itself.
- pibechorro 4y ago
  There is an obvious answer. The military needs to be mainly focused on Homeland defense, as it was intended. Being world police is stupid and wastefull. Its bankrupted us just like every empire that over extends itself (and debases its currency).
  - robcohen 4y ago
    Seems non-obvious to me. The world currency is the dollar presently. We protect the trade routes around the world. Remove that protection, those trade routes will no longer be in our favor. Whoever controls them will set up tariffs to massively hurt the US and benefit themselves. Put another way, how do you think the US would fare long term if China and Russia controlled all international trade?
    - justsomehnguy 4y ago
      > We protect the trade routes around the world. From whom exactly?
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago
  I don’t think that a conflict would go farther afield than Okinawa before the US used nuclear weapons. I do not believe the US is willing to lose in a way that matters.
hsjqllzlfkf 4y ago
[dead]
HPsquared 4y ago
It's not just military procurement, it's pretty much everything.
mschuster91 4y ago
> Do we need to talk about this? Like, urgently? That's the question of what your threat model is and what your world view says about interventionism vs isolationism. China won't attack the US or NATO allies in a direct war any time soon and so will Russia, so if you are following an US-isolationist worldview, there is nothing to worry about. Let China deal with their neighbours on its own, why should the US care about India, Vietnam, Japan or Taiwan? If you are rather following an interventionist policy, the situation looks different: formal or informal allies get threatened by the day by Chinese aggression. China is literally carbon-copying the OG Nazi framework of running labor and extermination camps. Personal freedoms, or the very few that Chinese people had in the first place, get eroded every day. China has built secret "police" forces in our nations that threaten Chinese dissidents. Chinese hackers hack everywhere they can and steal data to undercut our companies on price, and Tiktok allows them direct access to the minds of our children. Chinese foreign developments are looting half of Africa. Personally, I am a friend of an interventionist policy - China is the largest threat in decades against the free West, the lessons we learned from 1933-1945 and the values we (at least claim to) hold. So yes, we as Western countries need to urgently talk about this, alone to give our allies security against China.
freddie_mercury 4y ago
No, there's no need to talk about it urgently. He pulls a sleight of hand by talking about purchasing power parity. But PPP isn't that meaningful for things that priced globally, which an awful lot of high tech stuff is. China's PPP is about 4:1 according to https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-p... China's ZTZ-99 main battle tank apparently costs around $2.6 million. A German Leopard 2 is around $5.7 million. You can see they don't actually get 4:1 savings, so using PPP is misleading.
- civilized 4y ago
  Ah, I think that makes sense? Let me guess at the idea here: is it something like, "just because Chinas' domestically produced rice and wheat (for example) are a lot cheaper than the same in Western countries doesn't mean tanks and computers are, because a lot of the materials for the latter are produced by high-income countries and China pays about the same for them as anyone else" Still, if the analysis is off because it used a 4:1 PPP when it should have used something more like 2:1, that would still suggest a problem? Unless the Chinese goods are inferior.
  - cma 4y ago
    Rice and wheat are priced somewhat globally too, the canonical examples are service things like haircuts, childcare, etc. that can only be provided locally.
- yunohn 4y ago
  He’s not using the general PPP measure - he’s just using the same concept applied to military tech. He clearly qualified it by saying “to reach the same capability”.
naasking 4y ago
> Do we need to talk about this? Like, urgently? Yes. Start with talking about why the Pentagon has failed its last five audits, and why so many talking heads are going around trying to convince people it isn't a problem.
- _huayra_ 4y ago
  Jon Stewart recently did a fantastic interview with the defense secretary where he grilled her on this: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527213-1/comedianjon-stewart-deputy-defense-secretary-human-impact-military-service https://www.c-span.org/video/?527213-1/comedianjon-stewart-d...
  - 0zemp1c 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - Yoofie 4y ago
    Thanks for the link to the interview. I never seen such a high level official squirm for so long. Kudos to Jon Stewart for pushing this.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Yes, that's the interview I was thinking about in my initial post. This is what journalism is supposed to look like, not the chummy backslapping, glad handing we have today.
- nradov 4y ago
  There was no expectation that the Pentagon would pass the first few audits. The internal financial systems are so screwed up that everyone knew they would fail. The systems should never have been allowed to deteriorate to that level but now that's water under the bridge. The real point of the audits is to identify the areas that need the most remedial work. Realistically it will take several more years until they can pass.
hakfoo 4y ago
Part of the multiplier is that they enjoy second-mover benefits. The US buys a lot of very expensive first-of-its kind defense bric-a-brac. The rest of the world-- both foes and allies-- can ride on this expenditure. 1. They can watch what we buy that doesn't work and skip it. 2. They don't have to lead the way. For the price of one nth-generation tank/plane/missile, they can buy several previous-generation models and zerg rush. 3. When they're ready to make their cherry-picked decisions, it's a few years down the road and overall manufacturing technology-- from semiconductor processes to materials tech-- is a little further along, so building even largely the same unit will be cheaper.
- swalling 4y ago
  China also benefits from the second mover advantage here because they have a state-sponsored program to steal every piece of R&D they can get their hands on. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/business/china-technology-transfer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/business/china-technology... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950

thoughtstheseus 4y ago

The U.S. military is principally an expeditionary force. It’s designed to travel far distances. Not homeland defense. The PRC is concentrated instead on its own borders. Only recently have they sought more expeditionary capabilities. The PRC is significantly safer from kinetic attacks compared to the U.S. Our military commanders recognize this and note that a conflict with the PRC would likely reach the U.S. homeland…

hsjqllzlfkf 4y ago
I don't understand your comment. You start by saying that the US military is an expeditionary force while the PRC isn't, but end by saying that a conflict would likely reach US homeland. Don't those two contradict each other?
- victorbjorklund 4y ago
  No, they dont (no idea if the statements are true). I suppose what he means is that the territorial defense of China is much stronger than US which makes it less likely that US would send boots on the ground in china (because that would be suicide) while US defense is weaker making it more likely for China to try and succeed in putting boots on the ground in US.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    Why would China even want to put boots on US grounds in the first place? There's nothing to gain for them there - in contrast to other, much more lucrative places that are way easier to gain control of: - Taiwan to follow the long-held goal of reunification (and getting rid of a live example of Chinese-descent people in democracy and freedom, similar to why Putin decided to invade Ukraine) - half their neighborhood in a fight for resources such as fishing grounds or to use as a stronghold for blockades - Africa, Afghanistan and Southern America for natural resources
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      Ukraine could have gone an "democracy and freedom" route before 2014, but decided to go along with overthrowing elected governments, restricting language usage for half of its population and having private torture prisons run by far-right groups. I'm not sure why Taiwan would want to be long-term sundered from China. A hundred years from now, what would be the reasons for a separate Taiwan?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - kelipso 4y ago
        In my opinion, the only advantage of having a separate Taiwan is so China can't do force projection into the Pacific. Everything else is just political rhetoric.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        But why is it in the long-term interest of Taiwan Chinese?
        matthewdgreen 4y ago
        If you value the ability to elect your leaders and choose the direction of your society, this question answers itself.
pibechorro 4y ago
There is an obvious answer. The military needs to be mainly focused on Homeland defense, as it was intended. Being world police is stupid and wastefull. Its bankrupted us just like every empire that over extends itself (and debases its currency).
- robcohen 4y ago
  Seems non-obvious to me. The world currency is the dollar presently. We protect the trade routes around the world. Remove that protection, those trade routes will no longer be in our favor. Whoever controls them will set up tariffs to massively hurt the US and benefit themselves. Put another way, how do you think the US would fare long term if China and Russia controlled all international trade?
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    > We protect the trade routes around the world. From whom exactly?
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
I don’t think that a conflict would go farther afield than Okinawa before the US used nuclear weapons. I do not believe the US is willing to lose in a way that matters.

hsjqllzlfkf 4y ago

[dead]

HPsquared 4y ago

It's not just military procurement, it's pretty much everything.

mschuster91 4y ago

> Do we need to talk about this? Like, urgently? That's the question of what your threat model is and what your world view says about interventionism vs isolationism. China won't attack the US or NATO allies in a direct war any time soon and so will Russia, so if you are following an US-isolationist worldview, there is nothing to worry about. Let China deal with their neighbours on its own, why should the US care about India, Vietnam, Japan or Taiwan? If you are rather following an interventionist policy, the situation looks different: formal or informal allies get threatened by the day by Chinese aggression. China is literally carbon-copying the OG Nazi framework of running labor and extermination camps. Personal freedoms, or the very few that Chinese people had in the first place, get eroded every day. China has built secret "police" forces in our nations that threaten Chinese dissidents. Chinese hackers hack everywhere they can and steal data to undercut our companies on price, and Tiktok allows them direct access to the minds of our children. Chinese foreign developments are looting half of Africa. Personally, I am a friend of an interventionist policy - China is the largest threat in decades against the free West, the lessons we learned from 1933-1945 and the values we (at least claim to) hold. So yes, we as Western countries need to urgently talk about this, alone to give our allies security against China.

freddie_mercury 4y ago

No, there's no need to talk about it urgently. He pulls a sleight of hand by talking about purchasing power parity. But PPP isn't that meaningful for things that priced globally, which an awful lot of high tech stuff is. China's PPP is about 4:1 according to https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-ppp.htm https://data.oecd.org/conversion/purchasing-power-parities-p... China's ZTZ-99 main battle tank apparently costs around $2.6 million. A German Leopard 2 is around $5.7 million. You can see they don't actually get 4:1 savings, so using PPP is misleading.

civilized 4y ago
Ah, I think that makes sense? Let me guess at the idea here: is it something like, "just because Chinas' domestically produced rice and wheat (for example) are a lot cheaper than the same in Western countries doesn't mean tanks and computers are, because a lot of the materials for the latter are produced by high-income countries and China pays about the same for them as anyone else" Still, if the analysis is off because it used a 4:1 PPP when it should have used something more like 2:1, that would still suggest a problem? Unless the Chinese goods are inferior.
- cma 4y ago
  Rice and wheat are priced somewhat globally too, the canonical examples are service things like haircuts, childcare, etc. that can only be provided locally.
yunohn 4y ago
He’s not using the general PPP measure - he’s just using the same concept applied to military tech. He clearly qualified it by saying “to reach the same capability”.

naasking 4y ago

> Do we need to talk about this? Like, urgently? Yes. Start with talking about why the Pentagon has failed its last five audits, and why so many talking heads are going around trying to convince people it isn't a problem.

_huayra_ 4y ago
Jon Stewart recently did a fantastic interview with the defense secretary where he grilled her on this: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527213-1/comedianjon-stewart-deputy-defense-secretary-human-impact-military-service https://www.c-span.org/video/?527213-1/comedianjon-stewart-d...
- 0zemp1c 4y ago
  [flagged]
- Yoofie 4y ago
  Thanks for the link to the interview. I never seen such a high level official squirm for so long. Kudos to Jon Stewart for pushing this.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Yes, that's the interview I was thinking about in my initial post. This is what journalism is supposed to look like, not the chummy backslapping, glad handing we have today.
nradov 4y ago
There was no expectation that the Pentagon would pass the first few audits. The internal financial systems are so screwed up that everyone knew they would fail. The systems should never have been allowed to deteriorate to that level but now that's water under the bridge. The real point of the audits is to identify the areas that need the most remedial work. Realistically it will take several more years until they can pass.

hakfoo 4y ago

Part of the multiplier is that they enjoy second-mover benefits. The US buys a lot of very expensive first-of-its kind defense bric-a-brac. The rest of the world-- both foes and allies-- can ride on this expenditure. 1. They can watch what we buy that doesn't work and skip it. 2. They don't have to lead the way. For the price of one nth-generation tank/plane/missile, they can buy several previous-generation models and zerg rush. 3. When they're ready to make their cherry-picked decisions, it's a few years down the road and overall manufacturing technology-- from semiconductor processes to materials tech-- is a little further along, so building even largely the same unit will be cheaper.

swalling 4y ago
China also benefits from the second mover advantage here because they have a state-sponsored program to steal every piece of R&D they can get their hands on. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/business/china-technology-transfer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/business/china-technology... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950