How China is replacing America as Asia’s military titan(reuters.com)
reuters.com
How China is replacing America as Asia’s military titan
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-army-xi/
68 comments
It kind of worked with the Soviet Union. They tried to keep up, but just didn't have the economic power to do it.
It won't with China, because China isn't playing the force projecting world superpower game like the SU was.
It won't with China, because China isn't playing the force projecting world superpower game like the SU was.
I can't say for sure, but I have a hard time believing a lot of our spend is less efficient than other nations (just like our spend on most sectors of the economy that are heavily government-involved, like healthcare and education where we get less bang for the buck)
The SU was also much smaller than NATO wrt to population, it's reversed with China.
NATO countries have a comparable population to China, 938 million, according to this: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/nato-countries/
Yeah, it's not a 2:1 thing, but 40% more is still significant.
NATO countries are much more industrialized than China (the same applied when the SU was the opponent), so that certainly helps.
NATO countries are much more industrialized than China (the same applied when the SU was the opponent), so that certainly helps.
To be fair, this is projecting power in Asia but the US projects power globally. That said, I'm no fan of this military budget.
Honestly I don't see a problem with it.
We already waste too much money in the United States trying to be the world police, and there's no good reason for it any more. We have too many of our own problems to deal with to waste so much money on that crap.
We already waste too much money in the United States trying to be the world police, and there's no good reason for it any more. We have too many of our own problems to deal with to waste so much money on that crap.
The entire "world police" concept is ridiculous and used to mask the true colonialist ambitions the US operates under. The reason this is a "problem" is that it might make China richer rather than the US.
The notion that the US military has been a force of good for the world needs to be abandoned. It serves only to encourage the US to attack more countries, as killing millions more Asians would be viewed as the more moral option than allowing Chinese influence to spread.
The notion that the US military has been a force of good for the world needs to be abandoned. It serves only to encourage the US to attack more countries, as killing millions more Asians would be viewed as the more moral option than allowing Chinese influence to spread.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
America, every European colonial power, Britian, the Soviet Union, and Imperial Japan have each had their share of atrocities where they were unchallenged superpowers.
There's a lot to be said for multipolarity.
Additionally, I'd point out the US funds ~1/4 of the UN (China next at ~1/10). Which seems pretty generous to maintaining internal order in a broad way.
America, every European colonial power, Britian, the Soviet Union, and Imperial Japan have each had their share of atrocities where they were unchallenged superpowers.
There's a lot to be said for multipolarity.
Additionally, I'd point out the US funds ~1/4 of the UN (China next at ~1/10). Which seems pretty generous to maintaining internal order in a broad way.
+1. We should make sure that our allies get access to our best technology and weapons platforms and obviously we can commit to defend them if they can commit to defending themselves (places like Germany need to step up to the plate) but America doesn't need to be the world's police man and can't afford to be the world's police man.
[deleted]
Ideally the US, EU and CN would work cooperatively rather than adversarially with regards to leading the world into a brighter future. The US and EU share s lot in terms of philosophy and economic goals. Japan and the “Asian tigers” also fit in. I think India to a great degree shares the same, but China currently is not in synchronicity with the EU-US-JP and to a lesser extent India’s goals on the world stage. We can quibble about climate change or tariffs, but we’ll agree on basic frameworks around trade, security, cooperation, and many other policies. We need a way to weave China into this (Russia too, but that’s another story) MFN status and WTO could have been leveraged, but that ship sailed a long time ago...
your priorities seem way off to me, I don't care if these countries disagree about trade but climate change needs everyone on board.
Also, we don't need China following the US regime change war machine.
I think any type of global war would far worse for human lives than climate change and also be terrible for the global climate. And if we are tightly coupled through trade that aligns our interests and helps reduce the risk of war as well makes it easier to cooperate on things like climate change.
[deleted]
Count Europe out as well. With Italy officially joining the Belt and Road and Hungary expressing interest we should align ourselves with the future not a dying America.
Sure, China has the best interests of europe in mind. /s Or could they be trying to split Italy off with their populist govt not have much experience and wanting to show they are 'independent'.
>>
His push to project power abroad was accompanied by a power play at home. Xi has purged more than 100 generals accused of corruption or disloyalty, according to the official state-controlled media.
>>
For me this is a resounding signal the PLA is predominantly a domestic force. American Presidents do not sack Admirals that easily, because the American admirals are more powerful on the seas than domestic policy or DC.
I am not discounting the improvements in Chinese firepower, esp. their missiles targeting carriers. This article does not have anything substantial to say, China is a military Titan.
China may escalate certain issues to divert the attention of people especially if their economy has a hard landing. Its a risk, but we all know it.
For me this is a resounding signal the PLA is predominantly a domestic force. American Presidents do not sack Admirals that easily, because the American admirals are more powerful on the seas than domestic policy or DC.
I am not discounting the improvements in Chinese firepower, esp. their missiles targeting carriers. This article does not have anything substantial to say, China is a military Titan.
China may escalate certain issues to divert the attention of people especially if their economy has a hard landing. Its a risk, but we all know it.
In fiscal year 2015, US military spending was projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion.
Translation: they need even more money.
Translation: they need even more money.
Both "federal" and "discretionary" are weasel qualifiers that attempt to make military spending look artificially large. For one thing, defense is one of the relatively few things the federal government is supposed to be doing--you would expect defense to account for a disproportionately large fraction of "federal" expenditures. (And it makes for misleading comparisons to countries with unified governments, where military spending is reported as a percentage of all government spending.)
For another thing, many expenditures are mandatory rather than discretionary, for good reason. Peoples' social security checks shouldn't vary from year-to-year based on government finances. That doesn't mean that social security spending should be ignored when you're looking at the percentage of government spending that goes to the military.
Total government expenditures in the U.S. is $7.65 trillion. The military budget is less than 8% of that. We're on the higher side, but that's less than for example India or Singapore. As a percentage of GDP we're at 3.1%, which is again on the high side but not crazy out of line. France is at 2.3%, and the NATO target for Europe is 2%. In the early 1990s, France and UK were spending the same percentage of GDP as the U.S. is spending now (over 3%). I remember people talking about Seinfeld and Friends back then, but not about how the U.K. and France were crazy out-of-control with their military spending.
For another thing, many expenditures are mandatory rather than discretionary, for good reason. Peoples' social security checks shouldn't vary from year-to-year based on government finances. That doesn't mean that social security spending should be ignored when you're looking at the percentage of government spending that goes to the military.
Total government expenditures in the U.S. is $7.65 trillion. The military budget is less than 8% of that. We're on the higher side, but that's less than for example India or Singapore. As a percentage of GDP we're at 3.1%, which is again on the high side but not crazy out of line. France is at 2.3%, and the NATO target for Europe is 2%. In the early 1990s, France and UK were spending the same percentage of GDP as the U.S. is spending now (over 3%). I remember people talking about Seinfeld and Friends back then, but not about how the U.K. and France were crazy out-of-control with their military spending.
> "federal" and "discretionary" are weasel qualifiers that attempt to make military spending look artificially large[...]
It's not just a weasel qualifier. There is mandatory military spending in the US, e.g. pensions paid to retired members of the military. Considering pensions paid to veterans a part of military spending is the norm, e.g. NATO's % GDP numbers take that into account for all its members.
> For one thing, defense is one of the relatively few things the federal government is supposed to be doing[..]
Sure, but the extent to which it does it is largely discretionary. It's mostly a political decision to keep spending more today as a percentage of GDP than the US was doing in the 1930s[1], or to name an example closer to the current day more than was being spent on September 10th, 2001.
1. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1792_201...
It's not just a weasel qualifier. There is mandatory military spending in the US, e.g. pensions paid to retired members of the military. Considering pensions paid to veterans a part of military spending is the norm, e.g. NATO's % GDP numbers take that into account for all its members.
> For one thing, defense is one of the relatively few things the federal government is supposed to be doing[..]
Sure, but the extent to which it does it is largely discretionary. It's mostly a political decision to keep spending more today as a percentage of GDP than the US was doing in the 1930s[1], or to name an example closer to the current day more than was being spent on September 10th, 2001.
1. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1792_201...
> It's not just a weasel qualifier. There is mandatory military spending in the US, e.g. pensions paid to retired members of the military.
So? When you're talking about how the military budget is too big, how does it make sense to exclude all the mandatory social spending from the calculation?
> Sure, but the extent to which it does it is largely discretionary.
That's not the point. Because defense is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to do, looking only at the federal budget will always make defense spending seem artificially large. You see people say stuff like "the U.S. spends more on defense than education!" In fact, we spend more on K-12 alone than defense--it's just that the education spending shows up in the $3.5 trillion of non-federal spending. We spend almost as much on infrastructure as on the military, a fact that is again obscured if you're looking only at the federal budget.
So? When you're talking about how the military budget is too big, how does it make sense to exclude all the mandatory social spending from the calculation?
> Sure, but the extent to which it does it is largely discretionary.
That's not the point. Because defense is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to do, looking only at the federal budget will always make defense spending seem artificially large. You see people say stuff like "the U.S. spends more on defense than education!" In fact, we spend more on K-12 alone than defense--it's just that the education spending shows up in the $3.5 trillion of non-federal spending. We spend almost as much on infrastructure as on the military, a fact that is again obscured if you're looking only at the federal budget.
I wasn't trying to refute your larger point that quoting some arbitrary part of a government's total % of GDP spending is mostly meaningless.
I was saying that your claim that "discretionary" in "discretionary military spending" is a weasel qualifier is wrong, because that part of the budget is meaningfully broken down into discretionary and non-discretionary spending. You can decide to scale active military personnel up and down, you can't (as easily) decide to stop paying military pensions.
> [...]defense is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to do[...]
So you keep saying, but the upthread comment is clearly about how much is being spent on that topic. Just because there's a law saying a certain part of the government is entrusted with a given task doesn't mean it's not meaningful to discuss how much needs to be spent on that task.
I was saying that your claim that "discretionary" in "discretionary military spending" is a weasel qualifier is wrong, because that part of the budget is meaningfully broken down into discretionary and non-discretionary spending. You can decide to scale active military personnel up and down, you can't (as easily) decide to stop paying military pensions.
> [...]defense is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to do[...]
So you keep saying, but the upthread comment is clearly about how much is being spent on that topic. Just because there's a law saying a certain part of the government is entrusted with a given task doesn't mean it's not meaningful to discuss how much needs to be spent on that task.
> I was saying that your claim that "discretionary" in "discretionary military spending" is a weasel qualifier is wrong
In the above, the "discretionary" qualifier is being applied to "federal spending" not "military spending."
> So you keep saying, but the upthread comment is clearly about how much is being spent on that topic. Just because there's a law saying a certain part of the government is entrusted with a given task doesn't mean it's not meaningful to discuss how much needs to be spent on that task.
The upstream comment is arguing that too much is being spent on defense by pointing to defense spending being a high percentage of discretionary federal spending. It is meaningful to discuss whether too much is being spent on the military. But it's misleading to make that argument by pointing out that the part of the government that's meant to provide for defense (and little else) spends a large fraction of its budget on defense.
It's like the statement that "44% of Americans pay no federal income tax." That statement is technically true, but calculated to mislead because it ignores that most of the total tax burden is not "federal income tax." Likewise, more than 80% of total governmental spending is not "federal discretionary spending."
In the above, the "discretionary" qualifier is being applied to "federal spending" not "military spending."
> So you keep saying, but the upthread comment is clearly about how much is being spent on that topic. Just because there's a law saying a certain part of the government is entrusted with a given task doesn't mean it's not meaningful to discuss how much needs to be spent on that task.
The upstream comment is arguing that too much is being spent on defense by pointing to defense spending being a high percentage of discretionary federal spending. It is meaningful to discuss whether too much is being spent on the military. But it's misleading to make that argument by pointing out that the part of the government that's meant to provide for defense (and little else) spends a large fraction of its budget on defense.
It's like the statement that "44% of Americans pay no federal income tax." That statement is technically true, but calculated to mislead because it ignores that most of the total tax burden is not "federal income tax." Likewise, more than 80% of total governmental spending is not "federal discretionary spending."
> defense is one of the relatively few things the federal government is supposed to be doing
Most people agree the government should also be providing some type of insurance i.e. social safety net.(social security, medicare)
Also where are you getting the 7.65 trillion number from? Most numbers I've seen were close to 4 trillion
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni...
Most people agree the government should also be providing some type of insurance i.e. social safety net.(social security, medicare)
Also where are you getting the 7.65 trillion number from? Most numbers I've seen were close to 4 trillion
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni...
Federal government spending is about 4 trillion.
7.65 is Fed + State + Local.
7.65 is Fed + State + Local.
> Both "federal" and "discretionary" are weasel qualifiers that attempt to make military spending look artificially large.
> For one thing, defense is one of the relatively few things the federal government is supposed to be doing
And "Defense" is a weasel qualifier that attempts to make military spending look artificially necessary. Most military expenditures are not for defensive purposes.
> For one thing, defense is one of the relatively few things the federal government is supposed to be doing
And "Defense" is a weasel qualifier that attempts to make military spending look artificially necessary. Most military expenditures are not for defensive purposes.
That's a rather misleading statement. Discretionary spending makes up less than a third of the federal budget. Defense spending works out to about 15% of federal spending overall. Confusion seems to arise because mandatory spending programs (like social security, medicare, medicaid, and the VA) are budgeted separately, as is the interest paid on federal government debt.
The United States spent $609 billion on defense last year. Surely it's possible to make the case for DOD cutbacks without misleading statistics.
The United States spent $609 billion on defense last year. Surely it's possible to make the case for DOD cutbacks without misleading statistics.
Federal discretionary spending is a very specific type of spending. Overall, military budget has consumed a shrinking percentage of GDP overall. From around 11% in the 1950s to around 4% today: https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/DoD-GDP-chart.png
Aka 16% of the total budget.
s/America/United States.
Seriously this bad naming needs to stop.
Seriously this bad naming needs to stop.
Half the comments in HN are flagged or downvoted. Is it a sign that the HN crowd feels uneasy and divided about China's rising power?
Meta comment: wonder if my comment will get downvoted too when it's just asking a question meant to start an intelligent discussion.
Meta comment: wonder if my comment will get downvoted too when it's just asking a question meant to start an intelligent discussion.
I suspect it has to do with the comment(s). Also there are all of a handful of comments right now, if you're drawing conclusions already I'd say that is flawed from the start.
It's all too easy to declare votes are for whatever reason you want to think they are.
It's all too easy to declare votes are for whatever reason you want to think they are.
HN intentionally flags and removes controversial comments and posts, with the intention to prevent trolling, flame wars, and other detrimental behavior patterns. This is considered a feature, not a bug [0].
This ensures that HN provides a semi-curated discussion weighted towards technical and scientific issues, and against geopolitical or socioeconomic topics, for example.
That isn't a statement that these topics shouldn't be discussed, just that they aren't necessarily appropriate for discussion here.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This ensures that HN provides a semi-curated discussion weighted towards technical and scientific issues, and against geopolitical or socioeconomic topics, for example.
That isn't a statement that these topics shouldn't be discussed, just that they aren't necessarily appropriate for discussion here.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> HN intentionally flags and removes
You mean, the forum software itself? Who wrote the algorithm?
You mean, the forum software itself? Who wrote the algorithm?
_mdlf(2)
deepVoid(4)
[deleted]
I can't be the only one noticing so much noise about China in American media.
Is America really so scared of being number 2?
Is America really so scared of being number 2?
Of course. Our entire national psyche has been centered around American exceptionalism for at least 70 years. Scared isn't exactly right. We're very rival focused, I would say. It's China now but there was a time when it felt like Japan would control the electronics industry, for example.
But is there an acceptance that the exceptionalism cannot be had by massive global bullying, wars, lack of investment in people vs corporations?
I mean, its literally impossible to be number 1, if the competition is investing in their people and aren't going to insane wars.
America is still number 2 and that's not a bad place.
I mean, its literally impossible to be number 1, if the competition is investing in their people and aren't going to insane wars.
America is still number 2 and that's not a bad place.
You say that but quality of life is still considered considerably higher in the US than China. Even if the trajectory looks good, as more of China moves to a middle class lifestyle, the growth that's fueled by cheap labor will slow.
Sure. But I don't know what's better.
A life of $10/day with dirt cheap healthcare or a life of $60/day with the constant fear of losing healthcare.
This is why PPP comparison matters.
A life of $10/day with dirt cheap healthcare or a life of $60/day with the constant fear of losing healthcare.
This is why PPP comparison matters.
Number 2 doesn't get to control what the numbers 3 - X do, number 1 does. US wealth depends on being the primary global power.
The US no longer has any coherent national psyche. It's just a variety of different identity groups scrabbling over who gets how much of the pie.
China isn't so much rising, as they are preparing for the inevitable collapse of the US Empire.
China isn't so much rising, as they are preparing for the inevitable collapse of the US Empire.
There are many alternative hypotheses to your rather provocative and insulting one.
As China's prominence or output rise, it makes sense coverage would rise too.
It also makes sense that as China has more impact on the world, it will naturally affect the interests of a greater number of people. This in turn, means more people have a stake in something China is or isn't doing.
As China's prominence or output rise, it makes sense coverage would rise too.
It also makes sense that as China has more impact on the world, it will naturally affect the interests of a greater number of people. This in turn, means more people have a stake in something China is or isn't doing.
It's not meant to be a provocation or an insult. It's just interesting to see how ingrained American exceptionalism is in our psyches. So much so that we are almost willingly blind to how far behind we've fallen.
Also, the media and conversations towards China haven't been less than provocative. Your stance of China being more visible because they now have more impact is accurate. It's more humble, more like a true winner, a true sport who was number 1 for many years but accepts there's another game in town.
But unfortunately, we're seeing more catty behavior than mature winner behavior
Also, the media and conversations towards China haven't been less than provocative. Your stance of China being more visible because they now have more impact is accurate. It's more humble, more like a true winner, a true sport who was number 1 for many years but accepts there's another game in town.
But unfortunately, we're seeing more catty behavior than mature winner behavior
EDIT: I hope everyone realizes this is sarcastic. We already spend more than China and then some.