|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Mar 5, 2012 9:06:29 GMT 12
I saw in the news this morning that China has increased its defence budget to over US$100bn. Second biggest spender after the USA at $739.3bn. Be interesting to compare the figures in a few years. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17249476 |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Mar 6, 2012 22:24:55 GMT 12
Lets give it some perspective. Last year the US got all upset about the PLA(N) sailing the ex Russian Navy carrier Varag for it's first sea trials after it had undergone a very longrefit and modernisation. It's a test bed. The US demanded an explanation from China about why it was sailing the Varag. Very hypocritical when the US has 11 CVNs. It will take Chinaat least 30 years to develope and stand up a carrier based force that will be anywhere near a major threat to the US. It is not something you canread from a book and do. Ok in 2010 the US defnce budget excluding Homeland Security, CIA, NRO etc., and other Intelligence and security organisations was US$710 billion. That makes the US$100 billion china spending seem little. However Chinese defence spending is shrouded in secrecy and opaque especially with PLA and its Generals having their own economic empire. Some people suggest that doubling the published defence spend figures will be closer to reality. Even doing that still shows the disparity between the defence spends between the two nations.
|
|
|
|
Post by expatkiwi on Aug 31, 2012 12:19:08 GMT 12
Still, China's military build-up in quantity and quality should not be taken lightly...
|
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Aug 31, 2012 21:32:38 GMT 12
Lets give it some perspective. Last year the US got all upset about the PLA(N) sailing the ex Russian Navy carrier Varag for it's first sea trials after it had undergone a very longrefit and modernisation. It's a test bed. The US demanded an explanation from China about why it was sailing the Varag. Very hypocritical when the US has 11 CVNs. It will take Chinaat least 30 years to develope and stand up a carrier based force that will be anywhere near a major threat to the US. It is not something you canread from a book and do. Ok in 2010 the US defnce budget excluding Homeland Security, CIA, NRO etc., and other Intelligence and security organisations was US$710 billion. That makes the US$100 billion china spending seem little. However Chinese defence spending is shrouded in secrecy and opaque especially with PLA and its Generals having their own economic empire. Some people suggest that doubling the published defence spend figures will be closer to reality. Even doing that still shows the disparity between the defence spends between the two nations. To get a real perspective on Chinese military spending, you need to take into consideration what they get for $1b compared to what the US gets for $1b. China can buy a lot more domestically made tanks, aircraft and ships for that money than the US could ever hope to. Add into the equation China's use of low paid conscripts for most of its manpower. I wouldn't single out the US for criticism when it comes to large power push and shove. I'm sure Taiwan has heard more lectures from China than it wants to hear, and what about those south east Asian countries who were recently told in no uncertain terms that China now claims as its own their South China Sea "backyard"? I'm pretty sure Australia, from the federal government to the ADF, doesn't wecome the regular lectures it received from China either. |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 1, 2012 14:27:02 GMT 12
The thing about China is that as it apparently has so little regard for the welfare of the majority of it's own people, then what is the outlook for any other people that fall under their control? I think we should all look to Tibet for the answer to that question.
Part of the problem for the Australian Govt. and the ADF is that the lectures it often receives on China actually seem to come from within Australia, from various do-gooder groups.
I certainly welcome closer ties with China; but not at all costs, and certainly not while they continue to say one thing, but do another.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Sept 1, 2012 15:09:37 GMT 12
The thing about China is that as it apparently has so little regard for the welfare of the majority of it's own people, then what is the outlook for any other people that fall under their control? I think we should all look to Tibet for the answer to that question. Part of the problem for the Australian Govt. and the ADF is that the lectures it often receives on China actually seem to come from within Australia, from various do-gooder groups. I certainly welcome closer ties with China; but not at all costs, and certainly not while they continue to say one thing, but do another. It's also useful to look at events like China's annexation by force of the Paracel islands in the 1970s, and its ongoing "border disputes" with its less powerful neighbours to the west like Tajikistan. Not sure I'd describe the pro Chinla lobby in Aus as do-gooders. They mostly seem to be naive economists who think the world can be simplified into a single number; the price of coking coal bound for China. The other group are big business focussed simply of making as much money as they can from shipping minerals to China, and who don't really give a ***k about the negative impacts the "mining boom" is having on the rest of the economy, and the long term damage its doing to the health of the economy overall. |
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 1, 2012 15:24:36 GMT 12
Ah, I hadn't even thought about the mining industry; but yes, they certainly are pro-China - as there is a price for everything, and China is prepared to pay that price at the moment.
The do-gooders I refer to are the people who become offended on the behalf of others - who may not in fact be offended at all - by certain actions or spoken words.
I just hope that the mining boom doesn't end up making Australia a tempting target in the future, as was the case in 1941 with South-East Asia being in Japan's sights for it's resources, when the impact of the embargoes began to bite into military expansion.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 9, 2012 20:53:49 GMT 12
China is just starting to stretch its muscles and I think the Spratley Islands will be where it throws down the gauntlet. It has a ballistic missile system that can target aircraft carriers in real time. If it uses a nuclear warhead it has the advantage of taking out a fair whack of the Carrier Battle Group too. From NZs perspective China is the ultimate foe because it will come down to a standoff between the US and China. This is not about politics or democracy or economics but ultimately a standoff between civilisations. However there are other actors on the stage and two major actors have to be India and Russia. Like the US and China both are nuclear armed and both have military equipment development programs together. Next is Pakistan also nuclear armed and propped up by China. But China has problems suppressing its own islamic minorities so won't want to get to embroiled to much in Pakistani affairs. However India is both China and Pakistans enemy. Iran and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a failed state and as soon as the ISAF leave open civil war will breakout. Indonesia is the most populous islamic nation in the world and since it borders the Phillipines which has a muslim minority some of who have taken to armed insurrection.
So this is how I think things will line up. US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, India, South Korea, Phillipines, Vietnam and possibly Malayasia (if it honours its commitments to the FPDA) against China, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia plus irregulars from Afghanistan and other muslim nations.
|
|
