4 ms·

I remember an article stating that the best predictor or war for a country is the percentage of men of conscription age [these persons being most likely to be a

I remember an article stating that the best predictor or war for a country is the percentage of men of conscription age [these persons being most likely to be a social problem unless drafted and a social problem should they survive a war and return to a poor economy]. China today fits the bill perfectly: lots of young men of fighting age and a possible war (with Taiwan) in which to burn them up. Even if China lost a war with Taiwan it would be in better economic condition afterwards, especially if the war was limited to Taiwan and no nukes used. Reason is, afterwards China's unemployment rate would be significantly lower (b/c so many soldiers died) but their population nonetheless sufficient for growth with a male/female ratio more conducive to the formation of new families.

kmos17 3y ago
That seems like a really poorly thought out armchair logic, a war over Taiwan will not generate 10’s of millions of soldier dead. The worst would maybe be in the low hundred thousand and the net effect on a population of 1.3bn will be nil. The temptation for China’s leadership to use war to rally its population under nationalism is a far more likely reason for them to go to war, but looking at how Russia’s botched Ukraine invasion is going it could be quite risky.
dirtyid 3y ago
It's a stupid argument because PRC unemployment is 5%, meaning youth get jobs eventually. There's just mismatch between jobs they want/think they deserve but they still eventually work. In mean time, high home ownership rate, high % of kids live at home, low student debt means youth can just chill / fuck around / be unemployed for a bit to explore options. In terms of attrition, at PRC scale, even with shit TFR generate way too many bodies to burn for modern war, hence arguments that demographic crisis would eat away at PRC war making potential even more retarded. And most of the wars on PRC horizon are air/naval, requires very technical personel that are expensive to train. Which is why PLA modernization had dramatic personal reductions over the last few years. This piece is extra stupid because is it assumes increase in defense spending, which btw is still modest ~2%, is correlated to increased personel, when most of the money is going into hardware/acquisitions. A country with actual serious security delimma would spend much higher % of GDP on defense. PRC in the 80s was spending over 6%, or US/USSR during cold war was 6-10% for US, and 10-20% for USSR.

kmos17 3y ago

That seems like a really poorly thought out armchair logic, a war over Taiwan will not generate 10’s of millions of soldier dead. The worst would maybe be in the low hundred thousand and the net effect on a population of 1.3bn will be nil. The temptation for China’s leadership to use war to rally its population under nationalism is a far more likely reason for them to go to war, but looking at how Russia’s botched Ukraine invasion is going it could be quite risky.

dirtyid 3y ago

It's a stupid argument because PRC unemployment is 5%, meaning youth get jobs eventually. There's just mismatch between jobs they want/think they deserve but they still eventually work. In mean time, high home ownership rate, high % of kids live at home, low student debt means youth can just chill / fuck around / be unemployed for a bit to explore options. In terms of attrition, at PRC scale, even with shit TFR generate way too many bodies to burn for modern war, hence arguments that demographic crisis would eat away at PRC war making potential even more retarded. And most of the wars on PRC horizon are air/naval, requires very technical personel that are expensive to train. Which is why PLA modernization had dramatic personal reductions over the last few years. This piece is extra stupid because is it assumes increase in defense spending, which btw is still modest ~2%, is correlated to increased personel, when most of the money is going into hardware/acquisitions. A country with actual serious security delimma would spend much higher % of GDP on defense. PRC in the 80s was spending over 6%, or US/USSR during cold war was 6-10% for US, and 10-20% for USSR.