China plans double-digit boost in military spending

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by OldMercsRule, Mar 4, 2012.

  1. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have thought to ask the Japanese and Koreans their opinion on these redeployments Shiva?

    You really have tunnel vision if you can't realize that we are just not like other nations who can sit aside and let Asia engage in an arms race.

    Japan is under obligation not to rearm and rebuild a military but they will end up doing so if we abandon them. A Cold War situation between japan and China is unacceptable from a geopolitical/economic point of view.

    We will never return to 1930's isolationism.

    Of course, something tells me you are an economic protectionist as well and would favor the globalized economy collapsing.
     
  2. s002wjh

    s002wjh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,210
    Likes Received:
    641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this is true few decades ago, but not the current china. now they try to hire college grad, upgrade their trainning, equipment etc. dowsize their military prefering quality over quantity. quantity is not as important as before.
     
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First off it is not "my" hyperinflated figure.

    I gave you my source and you can drill down into exactly where the spending comes from.

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_military_spending_30.html

    Your 2.4 Trillion figure is disingenuous. The actual out of pocket Fed spending on entitlements (spending minus the income that does not come from the fed that goes into funding those programs) is way less than the figure you post.
     
  4. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You get what you pay for. Massive numbers of poorly trained troops don't tend to fair well in modern maneuver warfare.

    The troops that the helicopters save are worth a lot to. Replacing a combat experienced infantryman, especially a squad leader or platoon commander is EXTREMELY expensive. There's also the morale aspects. People are less hesitant to fight when they know they have a very high chance of surviving injury.
     
  5. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The military has already had its budget cut quite a lot.
     
  6. antileftwinger

    antileftwinger Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What just this year, those cuts haven't taken effect.

    I am not so much taking about government budget cuts, but waste that can be cut, and the use contractors. I don't think the main building programs should be cut, like new carriers, amphibious assault ship, destroyer, F-35 and others. I also think it's wrong for the US to cut troops numbers, where the US is at it's weakest right now, compared to China, India and Russia. Am I right in think that cut is 90,000 troops?

    I also have a problem with politicians who twine when programs go over budget, then next for the next program a more realistic cost is set and they stop the program or cut it. In the UK the military budget is being cut by 8%, then the current government says their is a huge budget deficit with the MOD, yes because you have just cut the budget by 8%. Right now in real terms the UK isn't even spending 2% of GDP on defence, 11.4 billion in foreign aid which is going up and 8-9 billion in Afghanistan.

    These budget cuts really aren't needed in the US or UK.
     
  7. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The military has been downsizing for the last couple years.
     
  8. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Yasureyabetcha.... there is no world trade that goes on over there..... burp.... :roll:

    Sure jus' pull the covers over our collective heads at night then eh? Are you a Ron Paul bot, or some such? :rolleyes:

    "Constitutional obligation", eh? I must have a very different copy of the Cornstitution then you do, burp.....

    Mine was the one drafted by Benjamin Franklin, Madison, Hamilton n' Jefferson. Did the tooth fairy draft the one you are referrin' to here? burp....
    :eyepopping:

    I guess ya think a modern invader of North America in the 21st century would use sailin' ships or row boats or some such, eh? Bozo hissef would be proud of you.... honk... honk... :eye:
     
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you want an idea why it is so expensive to pay for the US military as opposed to the Chinese military, just look at how much both make.

    In China in 2009, a Private made an entire $131 a month.

    In the US in 2009, a Private made $1,400 a month.

    That is a gigantic difference, and when you consider that most of the US Military budget is pay, this explains why they can have more for less. If you went to the US military and told them they were having their pay cut by 90%, most of us would go broke.

    However, the Chinese military has a serious deficit when compared to the US in terms of equipment. The US has a modern armed force that has taken decades to build up. China does not have this. They have bits and pieces of it, but nowhere near what is needed to really be an effective military outside of it's own borders.

    You see them trying to build up to this, but they are concentrating on the "Gee-Whiz" parts of this buildup, and not on the nuts and bolts that really make it all work together. Hence, their aircraft carrier without the support fleet to protect it and keep it running (or even aircraft to put on it). Their Niclear Submarines, without the logistical ability to support it for any kind of operations, and the list goes on.

    It will take them decades to catch up to the US. Simply because they have concenttrated on the "sexy" parts of the military, and do not have the real infrastructure to make it an effective fighting force.
     
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh yes they have.

    Our training was seriously cut back about 2 years ago. We used to go to Yuma twice a year for joint services air operations. Now they send half the units that they used to because the money is not in the budget.

    We are also seeing a drastic reduction of troop strength. Next year at least 2 Patriot battalions are expected to be decommissioned. And you are also seeing cutbacks in almost every area.

    If you go to almost any motor pool in the Army, you will find an increasing number of vehicles that are non-operational for one reason or another. And if you ask the motor sergeants, they will likely tell you it is because the parts are not available, or there is no money to buy the parts.

    For an exercise in 2 weeks, we are borrowing equipment from another unit to do training. Half of ours is not functioning, and half of theirs is not. So by combining our equipment, we can have 1 battalion operate. And in about 2 months, they will be borrowing our equipment so they can do the same thing.

    Even if the military budget does not change, you have cuts like this. Because we still have to pay the troops (the #1 expenditure), buy the food, buy the fuel, buy the water, buy the electricity, and everything else needed.

    So even with a 100% military budget freeze, that ammounts to a 5-15% cut, simply because of inflation and the rise of other expenses.

    And we have already gotten word that training later this year may well be cancelled. All of our trucks and generators use Diesel. And with the rapidly increasing cose of fuel, there will likely simply not be money in the budget by the end of the year unless the fuel prices drop soon.
     
  11. s002wjh

    s002wjh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,210
    Likes Received:
    641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they start modernize their military in hte 90's. its only 2 decades, they lag WAY behind us in the 80's, and due to the size of their military its gonna taken them several decade to catch up.

    i would not say chinese building is "gee-whiz" type stuff. J10, 52C, 54 frigate, 094 are cabaple platform. they are not gonna build 52C by the dozen because most of their platform are still devloping. its gonna take a while for them to build up their military force. but if we compare chinas military capability in 90's vs today, there is a big difference.
     
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is true. Back in the 1980-1990's, they had nothing.

    Now they have, a but more then nothing. But they still do not even have enough ships to protect their carrier if needed.

    And you talk about their Destroyers like that is supposed to be impressive. They have a total of 3 Type 052C destroyers. The US has built 62 Arleigh Burke class destroyers. And of those, 61 are on active duty (the USS Michael Murphy DDG-112 is undergoing fitting out and sea trials).

    In less then 25 years, the US has built 61 operational ships of this class. That is almost 2.5 ships per year. This is the type of military that will take China decades to catch. They simply lack the ability to build at this kind of pace.
     
  13. antileftwinger

    antileftwinger Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So are you blaming this on Obama? Would coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan not help with training costs?
     
  14. antileftwinger

    antileftwinger Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Downsizing or changing since the end of the cold war? I think the latter.
     
  15. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why not? We are only concerned with a direct attack on the United State so why can't we defend the United States from within the United States (with the exception of naval fleets at sea traveling between US territories).

    Not a single war the US has engaged in since WW II had anything to do with defending the United States from foreign attack or invasion. Not a single one.
     
  16. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Starting at the bottom and working up I am not an economic protectionist. Why would I be? Personally I don't really care about the "world economy" when it comes at the sacrifice of the US economy. Why should the children of Americans today be supporting the economy of other countries which is what we're asking them to do with deficit spending. What about the economy of our children that we're destroying?

    Every sovereign nation has a responsibility to defend itself against foreign aggression. That includes Japan, Korea and Germany. Why should US taxpayers (and our children) be paying to defend other nations from attack. That is a responsibility of their taxpayers and not US taxpayers.

    If Japan, Germany or N Korea wants to have the US protect them then they should be paying for the cost of our military... all $900 billion a year. They can divide it up and each offer to pay $300 billion and then we might think about it.
     
  17. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Chinese success can be used against American leftists. China isn't the enemy. American leftists are the direct enemy. Focus on defeating leftists and leave China alone. Death to leftists...figuratively of course.
     
  18. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree.

    These are three of the strongest economies in the world. There is no reason why South Korea cannot outspend North Korea and be better armed than N. Korea, but with us as their partner they don't need to.

    If we are going to have bases in such places, whoever we are supposed to be defending- if they can afford to pay for it- and these three can- should be paying the bill.
     
  19. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    America doesn't need bases overseas unless, of course, your intention is to continue to act like a hegemon.

    America should avoid conflict with China directly. China would defeat America.
     
  20. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course the issue is moot as China has no intention of engaging the United States in a war. No nation on the planet wants to engage in a war with the United States and certainly none of them have any plans to attack the United States. The only time US military forces are ever opposed are in countries where the United States military forces shouldn't be in the first place.

    Not a single country has attacked the United States since WW II and there is no justification for any of the wars that the US has been involved in since WW II because no country has attacked us.
     
  21. GeneralZod

    GeneralZod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Germany does not need 'USA Protection" it is in part spending billions to fund the European military, which is growing so huge it might over take russia as the number 2 military in the world.

    But why the usa waste resources with germany is a question for the american goverment to answer. When considor Germany in gdp standards does better than america and by itself without EU support is one of the richest nations on earth.
     
  22. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    America uses facilities in Germany as part of its international expeditionary capability. America isn't defending Germany.
     
  23. GeneralZod

    GeneralZod New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I worked briefly with an american who spent a large part of his career in germany in the usa bases. In all that time, he never learned german. He coulden't speak a word of the language.

    The usa seems cut off from the average german, so if ever does leave, it won't be missed.
     
  24. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What "international expeditionary capability" is that referring to? Is it maintianing our ability to conduct wars in foreign countries against nations that have never presented any threat to the United States? Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan never presented any threat of attacking the United States and the United States had no reason to go to war against any of them.

    In need we can deploy the US military to anywhere in the world from the United States at any time. The US Air Force can conduct warfare anywhere in the world today from bases in the United States. The US Navy can go anywhere it chooses from bases in the United States and all base operations are in the United States. The US Army can deploy anywhere in the world from the United States. All of this has been repeatedly demonstrated time and time again.

    The US military should be exclusively used to defend the United States from attack and any nation that chooses to attack the United States has the problem of getting it's military to the United States. We need only defend ourselves and we have the advantage of defending our territory as opposed to going somewhere else to attack another nation's territory.

    As noted this is basically moot though because no nation is going to launch an attack against the territory of the United States today. It simply isn't going to happen and hasn't happened in over 60 years. We need to be prepared and to have a deterant military capable of immediate response but that is all. We can literally do that for 1/4th of today's US military budget.
     
  25. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are US military hospitals in Germany that are used in the global project. They are important to wounded troops. The associated air bases are necessary if global reach is sought.

    Hypersonic weapons based in the continental US are in their infancy. But give them a little time and they will come into their own.

    The US military should come home and deploy along the Mexican border.
     

Share This Page