China likely to unveil Defence spending for 2012 on this weekend

[northeast]

I lived in China longer then you were born kid. You should learn some respect and not make us Chinese look like insecure butthurt morons. Its people like you that make us seem uneducated chest thumpers.

What?you think you can gain respect by reducing your military budget？
So you think india is more respectable than china？
BRILLIANT INDEED.

 

[retaxis]

I won't reply you any more，till now all you have done is trolling and insulting.
Good Luck.

I hope you stop trolling and inciting hatred thinking Vietnam/India 'Are' land grabbing Chinese territory and will wage full war on China within the next 5 years. I think your straight up out of your freaking mind. China will spend money on their R&D in the hundreds of billions/trillion yearly especially in the field of space, information techonology, warfare techonology but not waste trillions yearly on a war that will not occur within the next 2 decades. China is ever weary and ever prepared. Obviously a boy can not understand intelligence or information but preparation is key and preparing and wasting money on nothing while it could be used in development and space is a whole different issue. Perhaps you will agree some day...Perhaps you wish to follow the old ways of USSR but one thing is for sure young men must learn.

 

[Raphael]

northeast, I feel very insulted when a Red Guard leftover who subscribes to Mao's 'continuous revolution' theory tries to deny my Chinese heritage. The fact that I advocate the most sensible and effective national policy makes me more patriotic than you will ever be.

Anyway, let me outline my argument:

Military-industrial complex refers to when the military takes over government policy, and pursues expansionist policies that are not in the nation's interest. Military-industrial complex doesn't refer to exceeding some spending threshold, but excessive military spending can shift the balance of power towards the military and create this complex. Some examples in history:

- German Emperor Wilhelm II dismantled Bismarck's careful diplomacy system and pursued an aggressive 'Weltpolitik' policy. This lead to all the other important great powers encircling Germany in a alliance to contain it.
- Hitler's remilitarization, which led to the same USA/UK/France/Russia alliance to defeat him.
- Japanese militarization, which led it to a USA/USSR/China alliance to contain it.

In each of the above cases, the countries were powerful, but not powerful enough to overcome an alliance of all the other powers. If the military takes over and pursues an aggressive foreign policy, the same encirclement will occur. Your "limited real war" policy is stupid, because diplomacy and good relations are absolutely key to China's development.

Also, military spending is expensive but a government's budget is limited. USA military spending is currently 20% of the government's budget, which is insane and a big source of its government debt problem. I've already said I think 2.5% of GDP is reasonable - anything more will hemmorage funds for better sources of economic development.

You make a lot of reference to Chinese history. The lesson to be learned is the self-defence principle: the only military necessity is the capability to defend the state. USA/UK/Japan have a natural geographic advantage in this area. In contrast, China's central geography was actually a huge weakness that left it vulnerable to Central Asian tribes. China would be vulnerable to Mongol and Manchu tribes until it obtained a decisive technological advantage. However, China will from now on always fulfill this principle of self-defence on land. China will never be overwhelmed by Mongols or Manchus again. There are no other land threats, unless you fear a Russian or Indian invasion?

The priority now is, as I said, ending the tech-gap and pursuing a blue-water navy. These aims don't require a military-industrial complex, and they certainly don't require an aggressive foreign policy.

 

[SinoChallenger]

To maintain a strong military force ,military exercises is far from enough，some limited real wars are also necessary.
military-industrial complex is the best way to keep your army strong.
Just like no one olympic games medal winner can achieve it by only exercise，you need some real competitions.

Exactly! China people should realize that our national security comes first. We would do anything for our national security and would sacrifice nothing for it either. If we need to fight limited wars with hostile neighbors to maintain our troops in excellent condition, then that's exactly what we should do. No moral quibbles about this: national interests come first.

China isn't going through any form of cold war with any country. Is slum lord India going to attack China..No. Is broke *** multicultural aka multi Hispanic America going to attack China no. Why even bother spending so much money to scare these poor insecure folks. Let them destroy themselves in time and watch with delight I say.

northeast is right. I've noticed many of these "Chinese" with only one Chinese flag really want to see China weaker and more harmonious with Western interests. Of course, they live in a Western country. If major sh1t goes down involving China they will get beaten up on the streets by white people. Meanwhile, we real Chinese living in mainland China are protected by PLA from white thugs.

Anyway, in response to the news, I'd like to see spending around 2.5% of GDP. It should be focused on tech development, asymmetrical warfare and a blue-water navy. Land forces are not as important simply because I think we have stable relations with Russia and India, the only two potential military threats, and I don't really fear them.

We have good relations with india? LOL now my view of your university has gone down a notch.

Fact is, the international system is undergoing a massive change not seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. USA is defending its dollar hegemony and trying to cut down any potential peer competition from China or Russia. Right now, there are too many hotspots of conflict in the world -- Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, South China Sea, East China Sea -- to avoid a war. A major conflict will definitely happen within 5 years.

China needs to massively increase raise military spending, commence wartime civilian training, and centralize government power in the security state to prepare for a total perhaps nuclear war. The opponents will likely be india or Vietnam with maybe USA or Japan helping them.

It's now or never! We either win this future war and become #1 superpower or if we are unprepared and timid we miss our chance and are doomed to struggle with national modernization like we did for more than a hundred years, except with dwindling global resources.

 

[retaxis]

Exactly! China people should realize that our national security comes first. We would do anything for our national security and would sacrifice nothing for it either. If we need to fight limited wars with hostile neighbors to maintain our troops in excellent condition, then that's exactly what we should do. No moral quibbles about this: national interests come first.



northeast is right. I've noticed many of these "Chinese" with only one Chinese flag really want to see China weaker and more harmonious with Western interests. Of course, they live in a Western country, if major sh1t goes down involving China they will get beaten up on the streets by white people.



We have good relations with india? LOL now my view of your university has gone down a notch.

No offence but weren't you the troll who was banned on AF?

1. I like to see admins check Ips since I have a good feeling your from US by the way you post.

2. Do you know Chinese real military budget? If so enlighten us because I didn't know Chinese real military budget was even classified to civilians

 

[Varunastra]

China should be Asia's policeman to protect Asia from Western interference!!(just a thought )

 

[northeast]

northeast, I feel very insulted when a Red Guard leftover who subscribes to Mao's 'continuous revolution' theory tries to deny my Chinese heritage. The fact that I advocate the most sensible and effective national policy makes me more patriotic than you will ever be.

Anyway, let me outline my argument:

Military-industrial complex refers to when the military takes over government policy, and pursues expansionist policies that are not in the nation's interest. Military-industrial complex doesn't refer to exceeding some spending threshold, but excessive military spending can shift the balance of power towards the military and create this complex. Some examples in history:

- German Emperor Wilhelm II dismantled Bismarck's careful diplomacy system and pursued an aggressive 'Weltpolitik' policy. This lead to all the other important great powers encircling Germany in a alliance to contain it.
- Hitler's remilitarization, which led to the same USA/UK/France/Russia alliance to defeat him.
- Japanese militarization, which led it to a USA/USSR/China alliance to contain it.

In each of the above cases, the countries were powerful, but not powerful enough to overcome an alliance of all the other powers. If the military takes over and pursues an aggressive foreign policy, the same encirclement will occur. Your "limited real war" policy is stupid, because diplomacy and good relations are absolutely key to China's development.

Also, military spending is expensive but a government's budget is limited. USA military spending is currently 20% of the government's budget, which is insane and a big source of its government debt problem. I've already said I think 2.5% of GDP is reasonable - anything more will hemmorage funds for better sources of economic development.

You make a lot of reference to Chinese history. The lesson to be learned is the self-defence principle: the only military necessity is the capability to defend the state. USA/UK/Japan have a natural geographic advantage in this area. In contrast, China's central geography was actually a huge weakness that left it vulnerable to Central Asian tribes. China would be vulnerable to Mongol and Manchu tribes until it obtained a decisive technological advantage. However, China will from now on always fulfill this principle of self-defence on land. China will never be overwhelmed by Mongols or Manchus again. There are no other land threats, unless you fear a Russian or Indian invasion?

The priority now is, as I said, ending the tech-gap and pursuing a blue-water navy. These aims don't require a military-industrial complex, and they certainly don't require an aggressive foreign policy.

you thinks china has no threat.
I don't agree with you，every country has its weak time，when you are weak，even a small country like korea would be a significant threat.
你难道没听说过＂居安思危＂吗？
history has proven it over and over again.
And I don't subscribes to that mao **** as you said.
As I said，the best defence is offence.
If you don't clean up the threat when you are strong，then when you are weak，when they can eat you alive ，it would be too late.
I think 3% or4% of GDP is better.

 

[retaxis]

China should be Asia's policeman to protect Asia from Western interference!!(just a thought )

Why do you Indians always think in the same perspective as the West. Do you never see the world in a new dimension a new perspective? China wants to inhabit future planets for space is the final fronter. The more nations fight and war among each other the further they fall from the ladder why would China waste its own resources to help them?

 

[Raphael]

Lol@ anyone believing the numbers china will put out.

They have been lieing for a while about their defence spending.the usa knows it.Its well above what they are saying.

Of course. That's why third parties have provided estimates of spending:

Military budget of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are estimates by SIRPI, RAND and the DoD. The last two are US government agencies and they're gonna inflate the numbers. SIRPI is a relatively neutral Swedish thinktank, and they estimate it to be at 1.8%. That's lower than all the other great powers.

 

[retaxis]

you thinks china has no threat.
I don't agree with you,every country has its weak time,when you are weak,even a small country like korea would be a significant threat.
你难道没听说过"居安思危"吗?
history has proven it over and over again.
And I don't subscribes to that mao **** as you said.
As I said,the best defence is offence.
If you don't clean up the threat when you are strong,then when you are weak,when they can eat you alive ,it would be too late.
I think 3% or4% of GDP is better.

1. We are not strong.

2. We spend up to 6% of our real budget on military already. If you knew how the government allocate spendings and black budgets then you would know our real budget is far out there.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------

Of course. That's why third parties have provided estimates of spending:

Military budget of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are estimates by SIRPI, RAND and the DoD. The last two are US government agencies and they're gonna inflate the numbers. SIRPI is a relatively neutral Swedish thinktank, and they estimate it to be at 1.8%. That's lower than all the other great powers.

The DOD estimates real Chinese budget to be 3x or more then real Chinese budget and it is very possible. What percentage figure would that result in?

 

[Varunastra]

Why do you Indians always think in the same perspective as the West. Do you never see the world in a new dimension a new perspective? China wants to inhabit future planets for space is the final fronter. The more nations fight and war among each other the further they fall from the ladder why would China waste its own resources to help them?

i was just joking yaar!!!

 

[SinoChallenger]

northeast, I feel very insulted when a Red Guard leftover who subscribes to Mao's 'continuous revolution' theory tries to deny my Chinese heritage. The fact that I advocate the most sensible and effective national policy makes me more patriotic than you will ever be.

Anyway, let me outline my argument:

Military-industrial complex refers to when the military takes over government policy, and pursues expansionist policies that are not in the nation's interest. Military-industrial complex doesn't refer to exceeding some spending threshold, but excessive military spending can shift the balance of power towards the military and create this complex. Some examples in history:

- German Emperor Wilhelm II dismantled Bismarck's careful diplomacy system and pursued an aggressive 'Weltpolitik' policy. This lead to all the other important great powers encircling Germany in a alliance to contain it.
- Hitler's remilitarization, which led to the same USA/UK/France/Russia alliance to defeat him.
- Japanese militarization, which led it to a USA/USSR/China alliance to contain it.

In each of the above cases, the countries were powerful, but not powerful enough to overcome an alliance of all the other powers. If the military takes over and pursues an aggressive foreign policy, the same encirclement will occur. Your "limited real war" policy is stupid, because diplomacy and good relations are absolutely key to China's development.

Also, military spending is expensive but a government's budget is limited. USA military spending is currently 20% of the government's budget, which is insane and a big source of its government debt problem. I've already said I think 2.5% of GDP is reasonable - anything more will hemmorage funds for better sources of economic development.

You make a lot of reference to Chinese history. The lesson to be learned is the self-defence principle: the only military necessity is the capability to defend the state. USA/UK/Japan have a natural geographic advantage in this area. In contrast, China's central geography was actually a huge weakness that left it vulnerable to Central Asian tribes. China would be vulnerable to Mongol and Manchu tribes until it obtained a decisive technological advantage. However, China will from now on always fulfill this principle of self-defence on land. China will never be overwhelmed by Mongols or Manchus again. There are no other land threats, unless you fear a Russian or Indian invasion?

The priority now is, as I said, ending the tech-gap and pursuing a blue-water navy. These aims don't require a military-industrial complex, and they certainly don't require an aggressive foreign policy.

More ignorance. I don't know what Oxford is producing nowadays.

Since when is China aggressive? Since when has China extended its territorial claims? All we've been doing is enforcing the same territorial claims we've made since ROC days for crying out loud. We are hardly in the same category as pre-WW1 Germany or Victorian England in terms of global expansion.

Does China have any overseas colonies? Please learn some basic history if you are really studying at Oxford.

It's clear you are ignorant of Chinese history. China's problem is not that we are too much like Hitler. That's total garbage straight from Jew Hollywood and anti-China propangada. China's problem -- was our problem -- was that we were too soft, acting like late Qing dynasty or Republican China, not tough and strong like Mao's red PRC.

To put it short, the rightist revisionism that started benignly under Deng Xiaoping has finally come to an end. Hu Jintao is the ultimate rightist revisionist and weak foreign policy puppet. Fortunately, Hu is leaving and now we have Xi Jinping, a hardcore leftist, truly red Maoist, and the military hawks are determined to uphold their vow to defend China's sovereignty, territorial integrity and national interests!

 

[Varunastra]

i just can't imagine what china's defence budget will be in 2050....................just look at this chart-

 

[retaxis]

More ignorance. I don't know what Oxford is producing nowadays.

Since when is China aggressive? Since when has China extended its territorial claims? All we've been doing is enforcing the same territorial claims we've made since ROC days for crying out loud. We are hardly in the same category as pre-WW1 Germany or Victorian England in terms of expansion.

It's clear you are ignorant of Chinese history. China's problem is not that we are too much like Hitler. That's total garbage straight from Jew Hollywood and anti-China propangada. China's problem -- was our problem -- was that we were too soft, acting like late Qing dynasty or Republican China, not tough and strong acting like Mao's PRC.

To put it short, the rightest revisionism that started benignly under Deng Xiaoping has finally come to an end. Hu Jintao is the ultimate rightest revisionist and weak foreign policy ruler. Now we have Xi Jinping, a hardcore leftist, truly red Maoist, and the military hawks are determined to uphold their vow to defend China's sovereignty, territorial integrity and national interests!

According to you China is ready to war with USA and Russia right now. Great hope you fair well in the nuclear fall out on the second hand no I don't since its people like you (warmongers) that always want war war and more war because you fail in a society which is providing ever expanding benefits to the civilians.

 

[SinoChallenger]

1. We are not strong.

2. We spend up to 6% of our real budget on military already. If you knew how the government allocate spendings and black budgets then you would know our real budget is far out there.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------



The DOD estimates real Chinese budget to be 3x or more then real Chinese budget and it is very possible. What percentage figure would that result in?

LOL you are not Chinese. And you are going around citing Pentagon for facts about Chinese military. You expect to be taken seriously?

Why do you Indians always think in the same perspective as the West. Do you never see the world in a new dimension a new perspective? China wants to inhabit future planets for space is the final fronter. The more nations fight and war among each other the further they fall from the ladder why would China waste its own resources to help them?

LOL that's total BS. Great Britain fought everybody until they built an empire. Qing Dynasty fought everybody until they built an empire. USA fought everybody until they built an empire.

Only the weak-minded buy this patently false theory that the more you fight the weaker you are and the more you shy away from conflict the strong you get.