Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Newsletter

AlterNet Headlines

 

The Mix archive by date:

«November 2009»
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930

Use » and « to view other months.

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Blogroll

Afro-Netizen™
After Downing Street
Alas, A Blog
AmericaBlog
Bitch. Ph.D.
BlogHer
BoingBoing
DailyKOS
Echidne of the Snakes
Facing South
Feministe
Feministing
Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch
I Blame the Patriarchy
Lifehacker
Low Culture
Media Girl
Media Matters
Ms. Musings
New West
Nykola
RadioNation with Laura Flanders
Rox Populi
Shakespeares Sister
Smith
Wonkette

China and the one-sided arms race …

Posted by Joshua Holland at 7:58 AM on April 21, 2006.


China's military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to ours.
Post Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
28 COMMENTS
china_military_rockets2
china

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

RSS iconThe Mix RSS Feed

RSS iconMain AlterNet RSS Feed

Get The Mix in your
mailbox!

 

Yesterday Michael Klare had a piece here about the hawkish imperative to "contain" China.

There was some interesting debate in the comments, but everyone seemed to take it for granted that China was indeed a growing military, rather than an economic and political rival, to the U.S.

One commenter wrote: "make no mistake - China is a global threat too. Like the US, you don't assemble an army like that unless you intend to use it . . ."

I'm not so sure. I have very mixed feelings about China's ascendance in many ways -- maybe I'll write about it -- but I don't see evidence that it's starting a Cold War-like arms race with the U.S., or will anytime soon. Of course, it's entirely possible that we'll start one with them anyway. Military Keynesianism remains part of our economic philosophy.

But let's be clear: China's military spending is still puny in relation to our own.

Last year the Rand Corporation -- America's premier military think-tank -- put out a comprehensive study (PDF) of China's military spending, which I want to bring to your attention. It was predictably hawkish, but the numbers didn't really back the analysis in terms of China reaching military parity anytime soon. From the accompanying press release:

A RAND Corporation report issued today estimates that China's defense spending is between 2.3 and 2.8 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product. This is 40 to 70 percent higher than official Chinese government figures -- but substantially lower than many previous outside estimates of the share of GDP that China devotes to defense.
The study estimates that the purchasing power of current Chinese military spending runs between $69 billion and $78 billion in 2001 dollars, and could reach $185 billion in 2001 dollars in 2025. This amounts to more than 40 percent of current U.S. defense spending.
Let's make sure we understand that. In 2025, China could reach 40 percent of current U.S. spending. But we won't be spending then what we spend now. At the present time, their military spending's about 17 percent of what ours is (excluding war costs in Afghanistan and Iraq).
By comparison, U.S. defense spending was 3.9 percent of GDP in 2004, amounting to nearly $430 billion in 2001 dollars. "China's defense spending has more than doubled over the past six years, almost catching up with Great Britain and Japan," said Keith Crane, a RAND senior economist and the lead author of the study.
Simple math. We have a much greater GDP than China. We spend 3.9 percent of our GDP on the military compared to their 2.3-2.8 percent.

The Rand study looked at 2004 data. According to the International Institute of strategic Studies, Bush's 2006 military budget (including defense spending "hidden" in other government agencies) is $552 billion dollars, 28 percent more than the 2004 figures Rand cited.

China's developing a military that will be a formidable regional presence and we do have allies in the region. But, according to the numbers, they're no threat to U.S. dominance globally.

At least not militarily.

Digg!

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.


Return to The Mix  » Post Tools: email EMAIL print PRINT 28 COMMENTS PERMALINK
Also in The Mix
On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.		 Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.		 Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated. 		View:
Lets see...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 21, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... any nation with a relatively comprable (terms being used VERY liberally there) to our own is an automatic threat to us and to the world... because they might try to dominate the world. Which means nothing more than we are fighting to maintain OUR relative domination of the world.

Never taking into consideration, of course, that our military strength and bellicose rhetoric makes us an automatic threat to any nation that has the bad luck to fall into our sights (see Iran's uranium enrichment in comparison to Brazil's).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the Chinese are smart.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Apr 21, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Chinese are smart they will continue to spend just enough on arms to provide an excuse for our bankrupting "defense" budget.

Our politics is now based on fear. The Republicans scare us with the terrorists, the North Koreans, the Iranians, and the Chinese. The Democrats scare us with the Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If the Chinese are smart. Posted by: MarcGarvey
What we are seeing
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 21, 2006 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.. is nothing less than the playing out of some of the most basic premises of contemporary society... namely that there is no concept of "enough". Even if you have the most, you should always be fighting to maintain that position no matter how pointless it may be to do so and ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS acquire MORE MORE MORE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We spend our money on war in a stupid way
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ghoster on Apr 21, 2006 11:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US defense (an oxymoron) spends billions on stupid projects and loses it all. Let's look at the Osprey, for one, the comanche helicopter, the huge artillery piece that never materialized and many other things. The Chinese just need to spend a fraction of that on things that work and just overwhelm our futile technology driven military. Sure when it works it is a powerful weapon but when the batteries go down it is still a soldier with a rifle that has to do the fighting. Think the chinese can't see this? They aren't stupid after all they own a lot of this country these days.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

China may not be a military threat, but...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Apr 21, 2006 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any country with a human rights record like China's, that uses political-prisoner-slave labor, that invades and conquers a soverign nation (Tibet) and threatens another one (Taiwan) - is a problem. I forgot to mention that they sell crap to Wal-Mart. That alone should make China a pariah among civilized people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Also forgot to mention.....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Apr 21, 2006 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that it was a great Friday morning while there were articles on AlterNet about a guy with a yard sign advertizing for a 12 to 24 year old virgin and a gubernatoral candidate in Alabama with cleavage. In her picture, she looked about 12 years old - thus forever connecting the two stories in my mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not so fast . .
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Baranga on Apr 21, 2006 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get the impression that many here are arguing that China is above scrutiny simply because America seemingly poses the greatest, CURRENT threat to sovereign nations. I would wholeheartedly concur that America is the most belligerent, imperialistic nation on the block but as we all know, there is often more than one bully on the block. China is a menace to Taiwan, constantly threatening invasion should that aspiring island nation have the temerity to declare its independence. Consequently Taiwan is also locked in an arms race with its militarily superior neighbor. They are putting Taiwan on the defensive and that alone is quite dangerous in itself. As one poster pointed out, China ALSO invaded a sovereign nation, has a disturbing human rights record and freedom of speech/expression is a joke. As I pointed out in another thread, does anyone think that Alternet.org has an equivalent in China? For many this is reason enough to see them as an evil in the world, albeit an apparently necessary one as evidenced by their debt-buying largesse where the US is concerned. Moreover, a nation need not match the US in defense spending to pose a threat. The truth is no country could match the US, numerically speaking, without driving the country into the ground - something we are hell bent on doing by maintaining current defense spending levels. In the end I still don't buy that China is entirely interested in remaining friendly with the West for much longer. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not so fast . . Posted by: AlienSlave
» Too Fast...by a tad Posted by: giles
» RE: Too Fast...by a tad Posted by: AlienSlave
Dear Josh-even though China maybe no threat,
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eileenflmng on Apr 22, 2006 4:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is irrelevant to Empire builders.

Have you read the USA Defense Department's
Quadrennial Defense Review of a few months ago?

I have not, but was informed of USA policy towards China by Jeff Halper, formerly of Hibbing, Minn. who has lived in Jerusalem for 30 years, founded and coordinates ICAHD/Israeli Committe Against House Demolitions and is a 2006 Noble Peace Prize Nominee.

In March 2006, Jeff informed me that the newest release of the QDR states USA is committed to the Long War in the Mid East ["A crusade!"] and a policy of containment of China.

"We have seen the enemy and he is US"-Pogo


Public Service message from WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But how does the money compare?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: IanM on Apr 22, 2006 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't seen any mention about the fact that dollar equivalent money buys a lot more army in China than in the US. All the discussion is about how the Chinese spending is less than the American spending, in dollar equivalents. But Chinese soldiers are paid a heck of a lot less, and it costs a heck of a lot less to do everything like feed, clothe, house, and arm them. And the Chinese are now making ever more sophisticated electronics, all for far cheaper than the Americans can afford to. I imagine that if the Chinese spend a tenth of the American budget, it would buy a lot more army. I wonder if they would still get more for a hundredth?

And the percentage of GNP isn't necessarily a reliable gauge, either. The economies are based on wildly different factors, and a measure of the military expenditure as a percent of GNP must be considered as only roughly equivalent, as a comparison of committment. It doesn't say much about the size of the actual forces involved.

I think the only really meaningful comparison would be to look at their actual troop numbers and materiel, try to estimate the actual quality of the troops and equipment and so on, and come up with some comparison of actual strength in China v.s. the U.S.

Let's face it; if they wanted to, the Chinese can mobilize a lot more troops than the Americans can at any price. How many have they mobilized so far?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But how does the money compare? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: But how does the money compare? Posted by: Joshua Holland
The Evil Stupidity of George Bush makes China moot
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xbj on Apr 22, 2006 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
China doesn't begin to have to match the US militarily or dollar for dollar; one of the triumphs of the foreign policy of the George Bush Adminstration has been the creation and solidification of a China-Russia-Islamic alliance, which together can not only match the US militarily, can quite easily overcome it. With China agreeing pragmatically to be the frontline strike force, and Iran to be the trigger (when attacked nuclearly), the strategy is simple, brilliant, and to the point.

Upon Bush's nuclear attack on Iran, China WILL immediately launch every weapon (nuclear and otherwise) in their arsenal at the US, which will strike back. After the American arsenal is exhausted against China, Russia will launch their nukes to finish the job. THE TREATIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SIGNED.

The Chinese are very pragmatic and realize that the American military-industrial-corporate that runs the country will go to war with them over oil one day, and it is better to fight now than later, after America has 'sewn up' the Mideast and locked up oil production. China also realizes that, with far more rural land and population, they will survive to rebuild (with the help of a grateful world), while America will not.

So is China a threat to the US? Not one billionth the threat that the suicidal desperate military-industrial-corporate Adminstration of George Bush's is, for a third of them believe China is bluffing; a third believe they can actually win a nuclear war against a combined China and Russia; and the final third don't give a damn one way or the other, because if they don't win their suicidal gamble they know they won't be around to complain.

In Bush's own immortal words "I don't care what history will say, BECAUSE WE WILL ALL BE DEAD."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

clinker
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cottontail on Apr 22, 2006 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. effort toward world dominance should scare hell out of every country, even China with its billion and a third people. The Pentagon is likely setting up plans to keep this country scared shitless should the Middle East disaster somehow be resolved. Fear is the key to keeping the military budget in the stratosphere. So plan to hear a lot about the "China threat" from now on. How can you blame Iran for wanting nuclear weapons in view of our boneheaded and illegal invasion of Iraq? Who or what gave the United States the right to determine who should and who shouldn't have a nuclear weapon to defend itself? Why hasn't Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? The U.S. is a nation of chumps, paying obscene amounts of money for war while many are hungry, homeless, and without health care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this is the reason why we need a military
[Report this comment]
Posted by: medstudgeek on Apr 24, 2006 9:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gonna go a bit heretical here. But like it or not China does have a billion people and a government that is eyeing Taiwan greedily. I don't blame 'em for what they're doing--any country wants to have a stronger military and be more powerful. But at the same time we have to recognize that a 'multipolar' military world isn't good for us here in the USA, and I don't really think the rest of the world will benefit either. Bush couldn't get more than two years into his idiot war before public opinion dragged him down. If it were the Chinese facing down Iran, they might have been nuked by now. US hegemony isn't great but just imagine what's going to happen when you have a bunch of autocrats who are answerable to nobody running things. Bush is a jerk and an idiot but public opinion is something of a check on him.
A stronger Europe wouldn't bother me all that much but a Chinese buildup scares me. (And I don't want to see Russia rise again, just in case anyone accuses me of being afraid of yellow people. ;) )

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]