U.S. questions growing Chinese military power

Thursday 26th March, 05:50 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 38 Total Comments Show All

mushroomcloud at 03:21 AM JST - 27th March

"What would those "other forms" be? I am not saying you are wrong, I am just not aware of them."

-Long-term US Treasury securities -Long-term US government agency securities -Long-term corporate securities (some of which are asset backed) -Equities (such as stocks) -Short-term debt.
DFXDeimos at 03:32 AM JST - 27th March

-Long-term US Treasury securities -Long-term US government agency securities -Long-term corporate securities (some of which are asset backed) -Equities (such as stocks) -Short-term debt.

Stocks aren't "debt securities". Do you have any figures on those other items?
mushroomcloud at 03:51 AM JST - 27th March

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34314.pdf
DFXDeimos at 03:54 AM JST - 27th March

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34314.pdf

I don't have time to read throgh some government report. Post the quick and dirty.
mushroomcloud at 03:56 AM JST - 27th March

According to the Nov 2008 CRS report for Congress (see link above), China holds approx. $1.3 trillion of US Govt assets as of Sept, 2008.
DFXDeimos at 04:00 AM JST - 27th March

Gotcha
OssanAmerica at 04:51 AM JST - 27th March

Did you know that much of the imports from China into the US come from >factories set up thru US-China joint ventures? Both sides made plenty of >money. Nothing ironic here.

Sure but I'm not talking abnout such joint ventures. I'm talking about companies like Norinco.
mushroomcloud at 05:02 AM JST - 27th March

The US has joint ventures with several Chinese state enterprises. Which means we can surmise that a US entity has a JV with a sub-branch of Norinco, or, Poly Technologies.

For example, CITIC is a state owned conglomerate. Yet one of their branches is Poly Technologies, maker of guided missiles and other forms of military hardware. Yet CITIC (Pacific) has a partnership with Walmart to fan out their chain of stores across China.

Get my drift?
Betzee at 05:20 AM JST - 27th March

For example, CITIC is a state owned conglomerate. Yet one of their branches is Poly Technologies, maker of guided missiles and other forms of military hardware.

Poly Technologies, you know your stuff!

I had a Chinese classmate in the 1980s whose well-connected hubby worked at Poly Technologies. It was known as a place where the sons and daughters of the PLA top brass were earning big salaries and traveling abroad when most Chinese still worked for the state or as private entrepreneurs (peddlers). Such opportunities were out of reach for the masses.
medievaltimes at 10:49 AM JST - 27th March

SUPERLIB - That's all nice but you didn't answer my question.
YuriOtani at 11:55 PM JST - 27th March

bet that China will soon include the Ryukyu islands as a part of the Chinese empire, why they were a tributary member until invaded by the Japanese, Think you will soon hear about the special Ryukyu Islands autonomous zone, give into this or face invasion!
blaze524 at 06:50 AM JST - 28th March

Let's put this criticism in perspective.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, world military spending in 2007 breaks down thus:

"The USA is responsible for 45 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, China, France, and Japan each with 4 to 5 per cent of the world share."

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

Yes, it is indeed a case of the teapot calling the kettle black.

I have a feeling this criticism is really coming from special interest groups that are eager to conjure up the next bogey man. They are building up their latest "enemy", endowing the enemy with all of this power and mystique, while downplaying the US's capabilities. This creates a scenario where despite a threat being really unlikely, it becomes in the minds of the US government to be existential and causes the US to spend ever more on defense.

Additionally, all of this nonsense about China being a "super power" is misleading. China may be an emerging economic super power, but militarily, they have a ways to go before they can carry that mantle. From a geopolitical perspective, the only one true super power in the world is and will be for the foreseeable future, the United States. This is because in order to be a true super power, a nation must first be secure at home, thus allowing it (if it chooses to do so) to project power overseas. With Canada to the North and Mexico to the South, the US is really in an ideal position to focus it's might overseas. Contrast this with China which shares a border with a host of nations, not many of whom can be termed "friends".

Secondly, Projecting powering requires naval and air supremacy. This is where the aircraft carriers come in. Last I checked, the US had a boatload of aircraft carriers (10+). China has 0 or close to 0 (I don't think the rusting Soviet made Varyag counts). China is only a regional power and will remain so until they build some carriers. It is therefore, in the US strategic interests if China does not get along with her neighbours, i.e. Russia, India etc.

Finally, the amount of defense spending cited in those figures is not an aberration; that is, it isn't a one time thing. The US consistently spends the most on defense. It has been that way for years now. It would take China a number of years to match the US's current capabilities, assuming of course that US defense spending stagnates.
taniwha at 11:38 AM JST - 31st March

Blaze524 Your world is almost yesterday.

Not only China, but India, Russia, and Israel have the means to project military might.

The US has military dominance for just as long as it can continue to fund its own military R&D. Everything it has now will be obtained tomorrow by most of those powers. It is a matter of sustaining the dominance by being able to fund it. At the moment, China clearly has more reserves of wealth than does the US and given time will be able to take a technological lead over the US once the point has been reached where the value of the dollar collapses.

All that 'neato' military hardware you talk about, the aircraft carrier etc, can fall into rusting heaps when they can no longer be maintained. It was only a couple of decades ago that the USSR collapsed, and with it began the rapid deterioration of its military hardware. Yesterday Russia, tomorrow the US. So it goes on. You are living in yesterday still.
blaze524 at 04:24 AM JST - 1st April

Taniwha:

US supremacy and hegemony, though arguably waning, is not dead. The US is still responsible for 49% (2008 figures) of the world's defense spending. This figure alone indicates that the US is in a constant state of accumulating new technology and replacing its old, obsolete hardware.

You state that the USSR's collapse contributed to the deterioration of its military hardware. Duh. This isn't really surprising. But the comparison isn't valid, because the US hasn't collapsed, yet. The irony of the economic crisis is that during periods of uncertainty, the US greenback is deemed a 'safe' investment.

Hence, the US will find the means to maintain its military spending (read: borrowing to buy guns) partly because it seems to be woven into America's fabric to have a strong military, but the other reason is that defense spending is responsible for a ton of jobs. And we all know how important those votes are.

Projection of power requires the ability to bring your soldiers and aircraft to any region of the globe. China still lacks this capability. The technology that China seems to be researching involve mainly submarines - including the rumoured Jin Class sub that is supposedly docked at Hainan Island - and is meant to combat these carriers. The recent incident in which the USS Impeccable was harassed by those fishing boats seems to support this theory. This is also what China means when they say their military expenditures are for "defense purposes."

I focus on the carriers because it is the symbol of American wealth and power and while many nations may have a competent air force, the overwhelming majority do not have the ability to transport their aircraft across the globe to carry out missions. Simply put, there aren't many nations that even have 1 carrier; the US in comparison has 12 carriers in service, 2 more than the rest of the world combined.

I'm not fawning at US technology, rather I am pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of a nation that is responsible for virtually half of the planet's military expenditures when it "questions growing Chinese military power".
taniwha at 10:59 AM JST - 1st April

Blaze 524 Yes, you made a good point. My points were also good, just irrelevant as reply to your post... ha ha. Game to you.