Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

China Spends the Cash

Chinese-general.jpg

With all the attention being paid to problems in the Middle East these days, it’s easy to lose sight of the military buildup in Asia.

Remember pre-9/11 assessments that the major threat looming on the horizon was a rising China? The first significant military confrontation the Bush administration faced was the mishap between a Chinese F-8 fighter and an American EP-3 surveillance plane in March 2001. The incident and its messy aftermath sent Sino-U.S. relations into a tailspin, cutting off mil-to-mil contacts and icing over diplomatic relations.

As America’s involvement in the Middle East and its commitments to the global war on terrorism increased, China continued its double-digit defense buildup.

A column from the online magazine “World Politics Watch” analyzes the increase and its impact.

While much of the reaction to China's increase in defense spending was dictated by domestic politics, there are real concerns about China's military intensions. China has been reluctant to disclose such information -- mostly out of fear that such a disclosure would remove any advantage it might have should a conflict over Taiwan break out. Still, Beijing does not want any suspicions over its army to lead to an unwanted conflict, so it has made greater efforts in the past year to air its military intentions.

Still, we need to keep in mind that even though the Chinese defense budget has posted huge increases for 19 years straight, it’s still only a fraction of the U.S. military budget in real terms. And the technical prowess of their purchases is generations behind American technology – or even those of defense spendthrift Europe.

But the recent successful test firing of a Chinese anti-satellite missile has put that country’s military evolution back into the headlines. And intelligence officials still tell Congress America’s spooks are keeping a wary eye over their shoulder at the rising dragon in the East.

(Gouge: NC)

-- Christian

Comments

--1) Purchasing power parity is the key issue: What resources can you purchase _in China_ with the money you have, not in the US.

actualy China is VERY RICH on ressources.

---2) I mostly agree with Keith, though it's unclear to me how much the PLA really care about the Olympics. Sure, the foreign ministry care, but they aren't the PLA.--

i dont see tanks and soldiers of forign ministry marshing in Tibet, south mongolia and East Turkestan. Do you?

--The Chinese anti-satellite missile was militarily effective, but a diplomatic blunder.--

that depens on what they wanted to show..

Posted by: janny the fart at July 17, 2008 03:12 AM


According to AW&ST, a large part of the increase is scheduled to be for pay, some may get 20% increase.

Posted by: JTH at March 14, 2007 07:44 PM


Food the greatest weapon of all. China has poor farm land and is losing more every day. A country that can nor feed it self is at a huge disadvantage. There has been much talk about China's 300 million middle and well off citizens. That only leaves one billion dirt poor peasants who have begun to scream, WERE IS MY SHARE!

aNOTHER WEAKNESS IS OIL. Most of which must come from the sea and the united ststes own the worlds oceans!

Posted by: davids at March 14, 2007 09:24 AM


1) Purchasing power parity is the key issue: What resources can you purchase _in China_ with the money you have, not in the US.

2) I mostly agree with Keith, though it's unclear to me how much the PLA really care about the Olympics. Sure, the foreign ministry care, but they aren't the PLA.

3) Having dealt with high tech at the research level for several years now, it's difficult to imagine that a well educated and well funded group anywhere in the world can't reproduce or surpass nearly any given military technology that we have. I think it unwise to base military policy on an imagined 20 year technological advantage. Just because Boeing, Lockheed et. al. take many years and billions of dollars to do something, it doesn't mean that thing was actually hard or the solution non-obvious. Can you say Sar Lupe?

Posted by: Kevin Parkin at March 14, 2007 01:49 AM


1) Purchasing power parity is the key issue: What resources can you purchase _in China_ with the money you have, not in the US.

2) I mostly agree with Keith, though it's unclear to me how much the PLA really care about the Olympics. Sure, the foreign ministry care, but they aren't the PLA.

3) Having dealt with high tech at the research level for several years now, it's difficult to imagine that a well educated and well funded group anywhere in the world can't reproduce or surpass nearly any given military technology that we have. I think it unwise to base military policy on an imagined 20 year technological advantage. Just because Boeing, Lockheed et. al. take many years and billions of dollars to do something, it doesn't mean that thing was actually hard or the solution non-obvious. Can you say Sar Lupe?

Posted by: Kevin Parkin at March 14, 2007 01:47 AM


The Chinese will be good boys until after the 2008 Olympic Games; after that, all bets are off. Regards Keith

Posted by: Keith at March 13, 2007 11:06 PM


The Chinese anti-satellite missile was militarily effective, but a diplomatic blunder. NO ONE liked any of the new 20,000 mph space debris it scattered here and gone over the atmosphere. And it was done much more efficiently 21 years ago by a US Air Force F-15. I'm more concerned about their laser technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle#Satellite_killer

Posted by: RTLM at March 13, 2007 09:29 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.