News Russian and Chinese military reaching out

[jim hardy]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2015-03-19/chinas-double-digit-defense-growth

Military Expenditures in Billions of U.S. Dollars

Comparing China's Military Spending and GDP Growth RatesI'd like to think the eras of huge land wars and invasions are over.
But i cannot let go of that old Boy Scout motto "Be Prepared" .

 

[mheslep]

A fairer comparison might be 1942 or 1943 when US spending was 59% and 76% defense.

Not fairer based on the point you were making earlier, and to which I responded:

but i am reminded of 1930's when Germany built an arms industry and bunkered up around its neighbors while England (and US) slept.

The allies were not in WWII with Germany in the 1930s; similarly the US is in no war with a major power. Why should military spending, now, resemble that during the height of WWII, especially given the size of US military spending is already many multiples of the other world powers?

 

[mheslep]

But i cannot let go of that old Boy Scout motto "Be Prepared" .

Yes, a fine motto, if one takes the time to determine what prepared means in this context, and if not used instead as a euphemism for "Spend More". See again your first graph with US and other nations military spending. If this spending is insufficient US, then how many multiples of US plus its allies vs China military spending is sufficient.

More historical comparison. US defense spending per year in constant dollars. Spending at the height of the Reagan era defense build up was $537 billion (const dollars). This enabled a 600 ship US Navy during a cold war against the Soviet Union which had literally threatened to "bury" the US, still enslaved all of eastern Europe, and maintained dozens of divisions on the border ready to invade western Europe. Today, the Soviet Union is no more yet US defense spending hovers around 50% higher than the Reagan era.

http://goo.gl/C1AIT7

 

[mheslep]

but cutting #1 and/or #2 is difficult, if not impossible,

Future Medicare increases will but cut. It is impossible for future Medicare to not be cut, since otherwise spending runs away from contributions. That is, benefits paid out are roughly three times contributions, varying with income class. This is the current reality of US entitlement spending: that which can not continue will not. The ACA already took over $700B out of future Medicare spending, though this point was hidden by budgeting subterfuges in the ACA debate. The point is that future Medicare can be cut politically even before the money runs out.

 

[jim hardy]

Why should military spending, now, resemble that during the height of WWII, especially given the size of US military spending is already many multiples of the other world powers?

I never suggested we go back to wartime levels.
It was you who compared a country aggressively at war to one asleep and struggling with a decade long economic depression.
Percentage-wise, US spends 3.5% GDP vs China's 2.1% GDP . source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

my point was we're cutting back the size of our military and decimating our manufacturing, in contrast to developing economies.

If we arrive at some balanced world equilibrium that's fine
and i don't like that US is the world's policeman

The world is not yet an idyllic peaceful valley. My rod and my staff they comfort me. That is, my capability for self defense comforts me.
I favor US retaining a military nobody else wants to tangle with
but keeping it home.

Too many dominant males in high places playing "Grand Chessboard" is what's wrong with the world.

 

[mheslep]

Percentage-wise, US spends 3.5% GDP vs China's 2.1% GDP

Why do you consider the percentage of GDP the relevant figure, instead of the absolute money spent on guns and ammo? I'm also concerned about the reduction in troop count and ship count, but this is not because of any sharp reduction in spending. Rather, the efficiency of spending in the defense budget is the issue. The explosion of civilians on the DoD payroll is an example. Military spending needs reform, not increase, and there will be enormous lobbying effort to resist that reform.

 

[jim hardy]

the Soviet Union which had literally threatened to "bury" the US,

wow was that Kruschev mis-translation hyped for decades.

From his memoirs, his intent was Communism would outlive Capitalism and they'd figuratively be in attendance at our funeral..Anyhow,

If this spending is insufficient US, then how many multiples of US plus its allies vs China military spending is sufficient.

Extrapolate graphs forward a decade and adjust now for parity then.

 

[mheslep]

decimating our manufacturing

US manufacturing employment has been decimated. US manufacturing output has generally been increasing.

 

[jim hardy]

Rather, the efficiency of spending in the defense budget is the issue. The explosion of civilians on the DoD payroll is an example. Military spending needs reform,

yes i agree with that, we failed to heed Ike's caution about the military-industrial complex.

Why do you consider the percentage of GDP the relevant figure, instead of the absolute money spent on guns and ammo?

Because I'm an old automatic controls guy. In automatic controls one looks both looks forward and backward to see from whence things came and where they're headed, and applies corrections. That's cybernetics.
The 2nd graph show's China's GDP should equal ours soon enough, and when it does absolute dollars will be the same as percentages.
Thereafter they'll be able to outspend us with ease.

 

[jim hardy]

If last year i made a million boxes of Girl Scout Cookies
each containing a dozen cookies
and sold them for $4 a box;

and this year i make a million boxes of Girl Scout Cookies
each containing ten cookies
and sell them for $5 a box

only BLS would call that 16% decrease from 12 million to 10 million cookies
a 25% increase..

Well, it's not that bad
or is it?

OOPS edit i see the label of year 2000 dollars. Will take a look.

 

[HomogenousCow]

It seems that arguing on in the internet with strangers is a past time for all ages.

 

[jim hardy]

It seems that arguing on in the internet with strangers is a past time for all ages.

hmm good point.

 

[jim hardy]

over and out on this topic

 

[HomogenousCow]

over and out on this topic

To be fair though, we're (I'm Chinese) producing a lot of steel and alumina because we're using it. Developed countries don't need that much because most of their infrastructure is fine as it is. There is an insane amount of construction in China.

 

[Hornbein]

In 1940 Nazi Germany was spending 40% of national income on the military against the US 2%. Today, the US by itself has military spending as much as the next ~dozen countries combined, and 3-4 times that of China. US military spending combined with that of its major allies is 5-6 times that of China, who has no major allies. Claims are circulating that China intends a blue water Navy. Good luck with that. The US operates 10 nuclear powered aircraft carriers with effectively unlimited range, compared to China's zero, and the US has enormous experience in operating and fighting carriers.

So me, I worry that military spending and the incurred debt is too high, with the correct amount of spending always given as "more" by the mouthpieces of the defense industry.

In 1960 the big political issue was military spending. The Democrats thought that military spending was insufficient. They said that the US had fallen behind Russia in missile technology. They advocated deficit spending to counter this threat. The Republicans thought that such spending was 1) unnecessary, and 2) would lead to inflation. Said inflation would devalue the currency, leading to more borrowing, which would lead to more devaluation, and so forth. President Eisenhower wrote that once begun, wasteful military spending would be very hard to get rid of. Such spending would be spread over all congressional districts so that all congressmen would support it, no matter how wasteful it was. President Eisenhower addressed the nation, warning that special "defense" interests were would influence the nation to perpetually increase "defense" spending.

The Democrats won the election. Then LBJ became president, a man whose power largely devolved from illegal kickbacks of cash from military spending directed to constituent Herman Brown of Brown and Root. The main source of the cash was the naval air base at Corpus Christi. Brown and Root later become Kellogg, Brown, and Root. This became a fully owned subsidiary of Halliburton and remained so until 2007 when it was sold off as KBR. KBR is plagued by scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBR_(company)

In the 2000 election each presidential candidate insisted that he would spend more on the military than the other.

The huge "defense" industry has enormous if not dominant influence in Washington. Wars, both hot and cold, are very profitable to said industry.

 

[jim hardy]

To be fair though, we're (I'm Chinese) producing a lot of steel and alumina because we're using it. Developed countries don't need that much because most of their infrastructure is fine as it is. There is an insane amount of construction in China.

And i understand that there's alumina in high strength concrete...

The 1950's and 60's mentioned by Hornbein were my formative years. Insanity of the cold war era was pointed out very well in movies like Dr Strangelove and The Mouse That Roared..

Eisenhower said in his introduction to "Crusade in Europe" 'I think there is no fundamental difference between an average Russian citizen and an average American citizen..'
Indeed one of Ike's daughters married the son of Kruschev's KGB chief... (that's a difficult reference to find, i have it somewhere)
So i have for some thirty years now pondered this question, "Given that royal marriage , was the entire Cold War a hoax ? "

Could another Stalin or Hitler come about in today's world ?
I don't know.

Perhaps in one more generation we can all let down our guard .
But recent events around Mediterranean and Korean peninsula suggest it's too early just yet.

As mheselep corrected me, US manufacturing is far from dead

http://www2.itif.org/2015-myth-american-manufacturing-renaissance.pdf

but i hope we're manufacturing "the right stuff".

It seems prudent to me for any big country to remain self sufficient.

Thanks for chiming in., Mr Homogeneous Cow

old jim

 

[Hornbein]

And i understand that there's alumina in high strength concrete...

The 1950's and 60's mentioned by Hornbein were my formative years. Insanity of the cold war era was pointed out very well in movies like Dr Strangelove and The Mouse That Roared..

Eisenhower said in his introduction to "Crusade in Europe" 'I think there is no fundamental difference between an average Russian citizen and an average American citizen..'
Indeed one of Ike's daughters married the son of Kruschev's KGB chief... (that's a difficult reference to find, i have it somewhere)
So i have for some thirty years now pondered this question, "Given that royal marriage , was the entire Cold War a hoax ? "

I don't think the Cold War was a hoax. Stalin was about as evil a ruler as the Earth has ever seen.

I'm not at all sure that there was any danger that the USSR would invade western Europe. I think the USSR was completely fed up with war. But if I were President, would I take a chance and unilaterally disarm? No.

One can make a good case that the USSR's actions were defensive. Stalin trusted Hitler. In return he got the biggest national catastrophe of all time. From then on the armed forces have been Russia's highest priority and trust has been in short supply.

It is true that Truman went back on all the promises FDR made to the USSR. (See Morgenthau Plan.) Surely this betrayal did not improve the Soviet mood

Returning to the present, I think it is only natural for "defense" industries to act to maximize their income. Their CEOs would be derelict in their duty should they fail to do so. A means to greatly increase their profits would be Cold War II. I would be surprised if they were not advocating this to the best of their ability. There is every indication that they are succeeding.

What is driving all this is the construction of missile bases in Poland. NATO says that the bases are meant to defend Europe from a missile attack from Iran. I don't believe it, and neither does Russia. In 2012 Russia publicly told NATO to remove the missiles, otherwise there would be "war." The West took no action.

Russia feels threatened by the push for Ukraine to join NATO. There was serious talk of not renewing the Russian lease on the naval base in Sevastopol. Russia would do anything to keep that base.

According to the AP, Putin has an 80% approval rating in 2015.

 

[Czcibor]

One thing about Chinese military spending - as their neighbours they have such nice countries like North Korea (sure this one was supposed to be a buffer zone that outlived its useful potential), Pakistan and Afghanistan. Add to it powerful countries with border disputes like Japan (islands) or India (some piece of Himalayas). No significant ally (because of competition concerning influence in central Asia I would not count Russia as specially useful ally). Their military spending do not sound excessive as such.

The part making nervous:
-far reaching island claims (which of course could mean that they would also mass produce... enemies)
-what if Chinese economy really slow down (like lost decade in Japan) and the Party would start using nationalism as way of maintaining legitimacy, which could snowball in really destructive direction

 

[Hornbein]

North Korea (sure this one was supposed to be a buffer zone that outlived its useful potential),

It seems like a very useful buffer zone to me. Look at a map and see how close Korea is to Beijing. It was no accident that the Chinese waged war on the US/UN when that army approached the Chinese/Korean border.

 

[Czcibor]

It seems like a very useful buffer zone to me. Look at a map and see how close Korea is to Beijing. It was no accident that the Chinese waged war on the US/UN when that army approached the Chinese/Korean border.

Well, it does not work so well when its a hostile to all world, ultra nationalistic and militaristic country that forges even Chinese currency and is armed with nuclear warheads. Usefulness already went down around Nixon-Mao meeting in 1972. Now it is only a problem that China subsidies with annually equivalent of billions of dollars and not get much in return. (except of course teasing USA and South Korea, but it is still not good business)

 

[Hornbein]

Well, it does not work so well when its a hostile to all world, ultra nationalistic and militaristic country that forges even Chinese currency and is armed with nuclear warheads. Usefulness already went down around Nixon-Mao meeting in 1972. Now it is only a problem that China subsidies with annually equivalent of billions of dollars and not get much in return. (except of course teasing USA and South Korea, but it is still not good business)

If as you say North Korea gets billions annually from China, I would be inclined to doubt that North Korea is hostile or threatening toward China.

Surely those nuclear missiles increase its value as a buffer state, thus enhancing the security of China from potential attack by the West.

 

[Czcibor]

If as you say North Korea gets billions annually from China, I would be inclined to doubt that North Korea is hostile or threatening toward China.

Surely those nuclear missiles increase its value as a buffer state, thus enhancing the security of China from potential attack by the West.

In spite of all my efforts, I really have problems to imagine millions of Western (with aid of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) soldiers marching on Beijing. Hypothetically I could imagine some limited war with air and naval skirmishes, where usefulness of North Korea would be tiny. Or a total war, but application of nuclear armed ICBMs would make any minor buffer state useless.

 

[mheslep]

In spite of all my efforts, I really have problems to imagine millions of Western (with aid of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) soldiers marching on Beijing. Hypothetically I could imagine some limited war with air and naval skirmishes, where usefulness of North Korea would be tiny. Or a total war, but application of nuclear armed ICBMs would make any minor buffer state useless.

China's concern is a would be thriving pro western democracy sitting on its border, which the Korean peninsula well might become if the south absorbed the north ala west and east Germany. There's much a totalitarian state has to fear from such a scenario that does not include military action.

 

[Czcibor]

China's concern is a would be thriving pro western democracy sitting on its border, which the Korean peninsula well might become if the south absorbed the north ala west and east Germany. There's much a totalitarian state has to fear from such a scenario that does not include military action.

Existence of fully tolerated semi-democratic Hong-Kong a bit damages your argument. Actually it may be a bit more problematic, because local population uses Cantonese and is hard to classify them as some weird foreigners.

 

[mheslep]

Existence of fully tolerated semi-democratic Hong-Kong a bit damages your argument. Actually it may be a bit more problematic, because local population uses Cantonese and is hard to classify them as some weird foreigners.

Yes, it would seem so absent a closer look. Especially since the handover, HK can't take any action that would cause the Chinese problems as could a unified Korea. For instance, the playing of loudspeakers on the border stating the leadership is evil as South Korea does now, correctly, against the North. HK can't be a haven for dissidents, can't make claims in the S China sea, can't join in solidarity with western countries on issues of common ground (trade agreements, UN troop deployments).

HK may have elections, but it is now subject to all the same net censorship and police action as the rest of China.

 

[Czcibor]

Yes, it would seem so absent a closer look. Especially since the handover, HK can't take any action that would cause the Chinese problems as could a unified Korea. For instance, the playing of loudspeakers on the border stating the leadership is evil as South Korea does now, correctly, against the North. HK can't be a haven for dissidents, can't make claims in the S China sea, can't join in solidarity with western countries on issues of common ground (trade agreements, UN troop deployments).

HK may have elections, but it is now subject to all the same net censorship and police action as the rest of China.

1) Overstating direct activity, while ignoring indirect one. My country do not have any serious policy towards Ukraine and Belarus. However... Plenty of Ukrainians work in Poland. Same ethnic group, shared history and the language barrier is tiny... And one of ideas during the Maidan, was to turn Ukraine into something more or less similar to Poland. They've seen it and more or less liked it (except the immigration service who was trying to hunt them ;) ), no special advertisement was needed.
2) Actually a bit opposite. The semi-election as would not earn top grades. However, no net censorship in HK. Existence of Tienanmen Square massacre museum and anniversary commemoration. HK tries not to annoy Mainland too much, but actually big part of leaders of Tienanmen protest were smuggled through HK. Anti gov demonstrations in HK are also tolerated, comparably to Western standards.

Honestly speaking I doubt effectiveness of loudspeakers against NK, I suspect that smuggled SK soap operas have more influence...

 

[Astronuc]

Russia tells Washington: talk to us over Syria or risk 'unintended incidents'
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-s...yria-avoid-incidents-100728012--business.html

Both Moscow and Washington say their enemy is Islamic State, whose Islamist fighters control large parts of Syria and Iraq. But Russia supports the government of Assad in Syria, while the United States says his presence makes the situation worse.

Send in Donald Trump?

 

[mheslep]

actually big part of leaders of Tienanmen protest were smuggled through HK.

Tiananmen Square massacre occurred in '89, while Honk Kong was still under British rule, making my point about why Chinese would not want a pro-western soverrign state on its border. Hong Kong was turned over to the Chinese in '97.

Honestly speaking I doubt effectiveness of loudspeakers against NK...

The question was not one of effectiveness, but how much of an irritant the action proved to be against totalitarian North, which caused them to direct artillery fire in response.

 

[jim hardy]

Russia tells Washington: talk to us over Syria or risk 'unintended incidents'
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-s...yria-avoid-incidents-100728012--business.html

i read that article and it made me ask "Who's being the knot-heads in that exchange ? If two parties are flying warplanes around the same playground i sure want them talking to one another. ":

 

[Astronuc]

Putin moves to establish Russian military base in Belarus
http://news.yahoo.com/putin-moves-establish-russian-military-belarus-143954578.html

Belarus has made clear it would not welcome a Russian base, but the former Soviet republic remains dependent on Moscow for credit and energy.

Not that they have much choice in the matter - it seems.