China strengthens military, Pentagon report says

[alp227]

Source: Washington Post

China is using its growing economic strength to extend its military’s influence by taking on new missions and investing in more advanced weaponry, the Pentagon said Friday.

But the main focus of China’s military buildup continues to be directed toward weapons that would be used in a conflict over Taiwan, the self-governing island that China considers part of its territory.

“Even as the (Chinese military) is contending with this growing array of missions, preparing for contingencies in the Taiwan Strait remains the principal focus and driver of much of China’s military investment,” the Pentagon said in its annual report to Congress on China’s military strength.

The Pentagon report listed an array of weapons systems that China has been buying as part of its effort to take on new roles and missions in the world. The Chinese are developing new stealth aircraft and may have started work on their first domestically built aircraft carrier. Defense officials do not consider the Chinese carrier to be much of a threat to U.S. forces or allies because it would be exceedingly vulnerable to attack from U.S. submarines in the event of a conflict.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/china-strengthens-military-pentagon-report-says/2012/05/18/gIQAgoGbZU_story.html

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Trot out the fucking boogeyman, it's ELECTION SEASON

Assholes.

We have 11 carrier groups, 2 under construction and one in reserve.

China has how many? One 30 year old soviet hull they are EXPERIMENTING with? Yeah, oh boy, we really need to be worried about China's potential to project force. Yes, let's glare at them while hammering out some new weapons. That will really help with diplomacy.

Maybe we could try being friends? I hear it's cheaper.

[may3rd]

3. Somebody want to bolster India's paranoid knee jerker's with the China string of pearls "encirclement

This is ALL about the embargo and tariff plans for Chinese products that will materialize
as an october surprise
before the election. It's already started with the solar panel industry

[cosmicone]

8. Oh yeah?

Then why the fuck is China propping up the psychotic terror republic of Pakistan? Why is China building naval bases in Chittagong in the bay of bengal and in Colombo in Sri Lanka? Isn't it to try to encircle India?

China is a menace and has to be cut down to size by disinvestment and massive tariffs.

Bring the manufacturing jobs back home.

[Blandocyte]

10. We keep buying made in China crap

American greed heads who benefit from Chinese labor are selling us out and enabling this. I guess the only way to stop this part of it is to let companies know we will not buy stuff made in China. That might mean not buying stuff at all. Hmmm. What a concept.

[1620rock]

2. Agreed, the Taiwan problem could be handled in the same mannor as was Hong Kong.

[OnlinePoker]

4. Hong Kong was only leased by the Brits

They were obligated to give it back and the Chinese didn't have to lift a finger or threaten anyone. There is no such lease on Taiwan and the Chinese want it back. They will, eventually, make the effort to do so and are building their military force in that direction. What happens after this is anybody's guess.

What is interesting about the article is that the Pentagon isn't worried about Chinese aircraft carriers because the U.S. submarines will take care of them. Well, the Chinese have subs, too and the U.S. carriers would be just as vulnerable. In 2006 a Chinese Song-class sub popped up within torpedo range of the Kitty Hawk during exercises undetected. They currently have 13 of these in their arsenal plus 4 or 5 of the newer Yuan-class. This would be plenty to surround Taiwan and threaten the U.S. fleet.

[happyslug]

9. Only 1/2 of Hong Kong was leased, the other half was BRITSH

The British took Hong King during the "Opium War" Increased it size in the 1860s. This was by Grant in "Perpetuity" i.e Permanent.

In 1898 The British wanted to expand the defenses of Hong Kong. It then entered into a 99 year lease of the "New Territories". The "New Territories" made up over 82% of Hong Kong, but not its inner core. Just less than half the Population of Hong Kong live in the "New Territories".

More on the New Territories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Territories

More on British Hong Kong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong

Britain could have retained what it had before 1898 (i.e. before adding the "New Territories&quot but decided it was better to give it all back then argue over how the various infrastructure for Hong Kong, built in the "New Territories" would still supply the rest of Hong Kong.

Thus Britain could have retained the inner core of Hong Kong where over 1/2 of the residents of Hong Kong live, but decided NOT to do so.

[Uncle Joe]

7. It isn't just Taiwan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014108579#post10

[octothorpe]

5. Isn't China still about 500 billion dollars behind the US in defense spending?

I can see how some of China's closer neighbors might be concerned (Vietnam, perhaps. Maybe India too), but I don't think China will be going on any global rampages anytime soon.

[Psephos]

6. The difference lies in how much each country's soldiers are paid. n/t

[ronnie624]

11. Probably not.

China has three times as many active personnel as the U.S., so their expenses in that area are probably similar. Where the U.S outspends China (by a huge margin), is in its volume of weaponry and hardware. The U.S., for example, has many times more ships and aircraft than China. The U.S. also maintains a global empire with hundreds of military installations, whereas China clearly does not.

[Posteritatis]

13. Soldiers' pay is a drop in the bucket in most developed countries' military spending. (nt)

If the US paid every active and reserve soldier fifty grand a year, which I'm gonna assume is high-balling that figure just a bit, it'd total less than a quarter of the defence budget.

[4th law of robotics]

14. A couple of other key differences:

we spend quite a bit to ensure low body counts. Body army, remote weapons systems, smart weapons, etc. This is because as a democracy it's hard to wage a war with lot's of dead people (especially Americans, but we don't really like killing civilians on the other side either).

It's costly but worth it.

If however you have a government that doesn't care about casualties you can save quite a bit of money.

And China is in a position where they have a surplus of males. So really they have an incentive to increase the death toll on their side.

[Psephos]

15. Bingo. n/t

[Downtown Hound]

12. Does anybody in our government seriously believe we could withstand a war with China?

Even if we did prevail on the battlefield, our economy would be in ruins. The biggest dirty little secret about our multi-trillion dollar military is that we simply lack the funds to use it in any serious manner. We spent all our money on building it in the first place.

The minute shooting started with China, our economy would take a tumble that made 1929 and 2008 look like little bumps in the road.