China boosts military spending 17%: Pentagon
posted at 6:15 pm on March 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Pentagon released its annual report on the military developments in the People’s Republic of China, and the big news is the escalation of spending seen from Beijing. Titled “Military Power of the People’s Republic of China“ [fixed link -- Ed], the report outlines a major expansion in appropriations. It also admits that the Pentagon has no clear idea of China’s overall strategy, or even if they have one:
On March 4, 2007, Beijing announced a 17.8 percent increase in its military budget to approximately $45 billion. This number was later revised by the PRC State Council to $45.99 billion, a 19.47 percent increase from 2006. The announced 2007 military budget continues a trend of official annual budget increases that surpass growth of the overall economy. Analysis of PRC budget data and International Monetary Fund (IMF) GDP data for the period of 1996 to 2006 show average annual defense budget growth of 11.8 percent (inflation adjusted) compared with average annual GDP growth of 9.2 percent (inflation adjusted).
China’s 2006 Defense White Paper states that between 1990 and 2005 the defense budget rew by an average of 9.6 percent, while China’s DP over the same period grew in constant prices an average of 9.7 percent yearly, according to the IMF. The 1996-2006 data are a more useful measure, however, as they cover the period following the 1995 and 1996 Taiwan Strait crises and incorporate the 9th and 10th Five Year Plan periods (1996-2000 and 2001-2005, respectively), which more fully reflect the post-Persian Gulf War reinvigoration of the PLA modernization drive.
The difference between the announced military budget and the actual spending on national security issues is presumed to be around a factor of three. The US believes that the both the low estimate and high estimate of actual spending would make China far and away the biggest spender in the region, dwarfing the budgets of Russia and Japan, and perhaps surpassing them in combination. The data on this is murky, but China has shown progress in modernizing some very expensive systems:
- Land- and sea-based nuclear missiles
- Domestic production of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles
- Advanced submarines and their systems, in both attack and “boomer” types
- Purchases of advanced Russian aircraft
- Air defense systems, especially long-range mobile systems
- A series of advanced Russian surface-fleet ships of all kinds
So what are the Chinese up to? No one at the Pentagon can quite figure it out. Their modernization appears focused on air defense and their navy, both in surface and submarine systems. They have improved these systems rapidly over the last four years. That seems to indicate more of a defense than an offense, but the naval systems directly threaten American strength, especially in the Pacific.
Fortunately, it looks as though China has not focused on building the most offense-oriented system of a modern navy: an aircraft carrier. They have talked openly of building their first modern aircraft carrier, but analysts believe them to be at least seven years away from producing one on their own. That could change, especially with their increasing closeness to Russian shipbuilders, and rumors swirled that China could spend billions on Russian naval aircraft soon. So far, though, that has not come to pass.
The DoD presumes that the primary motivation for Chinese military strategy remains the protection of the ruling regime. That could explain the focus on protection and modernization, along with some real efforts to promote professionalism throughout all of the services. That should not give us comfort for the long term, however. A China with a fully modernized military, build on professionalism and efficiency, will present a formidable threat to Western interests in the Pacific.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
All that just for the Olympics
Kini on March 3, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Obama’s plan for unilateral disarmament. Yeah, let’s put this guy in the Oval Office:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQx45ro_PT8
funky chicken on March 3, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Who cares what they are up to (we sure don’t as long as we have cheap goods), the fact is our great “foreign policy” and “trade” expertise that lets them build their military… at US tax payer expense.
Yup, I am feeling safe.
TOPV on March 3, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Score another one for…”Bush”
TOPV on March 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Oh, and it’s thanks to Jimmy Carter that the PRC now controls the Panama Canal. Yeah, let’s see what Carter version 2.0 can do for us.
funky chicken on March 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM
How much of that was thanks to the Clintons, Loral, and so forth?
Buy Danish on March 3, 2008 at 6:24 PM
It’s not hard to figure out what the Chinese are up to. They want to dominate either by threat of or use of arms.
TooTall on March 3, 2008 at 6:24 PM
One thing we have going for us is that the Russians were never big on building actual carriers, so they’ll have to do a lot of their own development if they are looking for be expansive.
doubleplusundead on March 3, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Buy Danish, oh, ya know, quite a lot. And Clinton folks are the ones who green-lighted the sale of some encryption technology to Syria too.
Amazingly enough, Hillary is still better for our national security than Obama.
funky chicken on March 3, 2008 at 6:25 PM
funky chicken on March 3, 2008 at 6:25 PM
We don’t agree a lot, but THAT I will agree with you on. Ugh @ hillary.
upinak on March 3, 2008 at 6:26 PM
I’ve been forwarding AWST articles on the massive Chinese military build up to Michelle and Bryan for a few years. We will be seeing them patrolling off the coast of South America (pacific and gulf) within months. When we abandoned the Reagan Home Port projects under the Klinton regime, China began to act. Base closings were defined by the democraps as Peace Dividends. But the second definition reads “danger”.
Zorro on March 3, 2008 at 6:26 PM
The Chinese threat to the US is their willingness to expend their people like water. The Chinese threat to the Chinese government is that they may no longer be willing to be expended like water. The math on this is that they may choose particularly rural regions to expend troops from, counting on the urban troop’s willingness to put down riots in the sticks.
Nevertheless, we are still spending 10x or more on our military than they are. And all of our allies put together are spending almost as much as the Chinese. I think we will try to de-laminate the Chinese people from the government. This is not as hard as the Communist party would have you believe. After all, they did it once.
Patrick_Lasswell on March 3, 2008 at 6:26 PM
upinak, hey, McCain was about my 4th choice of GOP candidates. It’s just he’s so much better than Obama that it’s a no-brainer for me.
And, did you see that Al-Reuters article I posted a little snippet of, about Gov. Palin trying to raise taxes and gov’t control on the oil companies up there or something? I wasn’t sure exactly how wrong they got it since I live down here in LA (Lower Alabama).
funky chicken on March 3, 2008 at 6:30 PM
We outspend them 10:1
$45 Billion China
$440 Billion US
They also have very limited oil resources:
Chinese oil production 3.7 million Barrels per day
US oil production 8.3 million Barrels per day
We do consume more oil than they do but our abundance of natural resources gives us the upper hand.
knat on March 3, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Yeah I did, but reuters had it all wrong. Who ever the reuters reporter was (didn’t read the name) didn’t look up the fact that State agencies and Federal agencies who lease out units (area designated for oil and gas developement) can fine and tax oil companies who do not meet the needs or the regulations of the Unit.
Palin was talking about taxing the companies who are sitting on these units… not taxing all of them. it was a word on word play.
Thanks for the article, I appreciate it.
upinak on March 3, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Thx upinak. I figured they screwed up something. I mean, consider the source and all.
gotta go.
funky chicken on March 3, 2008 at 6:36 PM
I beleive air superiority is what has given most (if not all) of our military victories in recent memory. And the ocean covers 70% of the world.
Add to that the distinctly Asian view of time (they tend to think in generations, not hours,days,weeks,or months) and China becomes quite formidible. Granted, the Chicoms are quite different from their ancestors, but to the extent that they continue the ambitions of the later with the “efficeny” of the former, it looks kinda bleak.
VolMagic on March 3, 2008 at 6:37 PM
actually China is very oil abundant since they import everything in and convert it to meet their needs. i.e. making plastic to making their own gasoline if they can’t get it faster. Their refineries are working a heck of a lot more then ours due to import/export needs of plastic.
upinak on March 3, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Guys,
You need to read the article more closely. The Chinese claim to have spent 45Billon USD on their military. The Pentagon believes this understates actual spending by a factor of 2 to 3. Thus the real spending is between 90Billion and 135Billion.
A lot of that has gone to the PLAN, particularly towards sea denial systems.
Rodney Graves on March 3, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Straw Man alert!
The Chicoms present an interesting challenge to us in that if you subtract the Mao era rhetorical dogma, the United States and China have historically enjoyed good relations. The principled eastern philosophies match up very favorable with the disciplines required to succeed in a free market economy. Chinese culture values the student/teacher dynamic and as such the United States should/will maintain the earned respect of the Chinese people for what we truly embrace and have historically demonstrated with them against a common enemy.
dmann on March 3, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Zorro,
Every base is dirt we’ve got to waste troops and money protecting. We need to close a lot more bases because the money would be much better spent making wages and benefits more competitive for the troops. More pay for the troops means smarter, more effective troops.
Patrick_Lasswell on March 3, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Paying the troops what? Magic seeds? Doesn’t that have to go thru congress, and OH GOD HELP US if they don’t want to pass anything for the troops… like we know they don’t want too already!
upinak on March 3, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Here’s a fun fact:
Using the 2005 International Comparison Program’s figures for purchasing power parity (PPP) for China, you must multiply China’s exchange rate by 3.4 to get the actual equivalent in U.S. dollars to find the actual value of their spending.
So, using that analysis, we get an actual public defense budget of $156.4 billion.
If Ed and commenter Rodney Graves are right (and they are) that China’s actual defense budget is 2 and 3 times that, then we have a budget between $313 and $470 billion.
To put that in perspective, the US’s 2006 defense budget was $419 billion.
So folks, China is effectively spending the exact same on defense as we are.
Nessuno on March 3, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Btw, should have done links.
World Banks’s ICP PPP survey
2006 Defense budget
Nessuno on March 3, 2008 at 6:53 PM
In addition to the Russian Su-27 series aircraft they’ve been importing, the Chinese have made large strides in their ability to domestically design and produce modern(ish) fighter jets (though the engines are still Russian-sourced).
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp
Blacklake on March 3, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Nessuno,
Thanks for making my hair a bit more gray…however…
That assumes comparable amounts of waste and corruption. While we often lose our minds describing government waste in the US, the military runs a relatively tight ship if for no other reason than on a fairly regular basis our people get shot at. I am less certain that the Chinese waste money less than we do. There are literally infinite ways that money can be wasted, and the Chinese have thousands of years of bureaucratic experience at wasting money.
When you consider that every dollar that the Chinese military wastes on stupid conscripts or corrupt supplier is 3.4 times as much waste as the US military, things aren’t nearly so grim.
Patrick_Lasswell on March 3, 2008 at 6:59 PM
That link to the .pdf file is totally screwed up.
This is the corrected link.
The link text I got was: http : // http// www . defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf without the spaces. An extra bold text in there.
Mazztek on March 3, 2008 at 7:00 PM
P.S>: It’s a ~30Mb file.
Mazztek on March 3, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Words to the wise:
#1. Bad link: Go HERE instead.
#2. This is stereotypical Pentagon overblown hype on China. Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of The Pentagon’s New Map, has a different POV: “China is America’s natural ally in extending globalization’s reach and absorbing those off-grid regions where rogue regimes, failed states, and transnational terrorism thrive.” Also in his talks he warns reports like this one are there to justify buying the wrong military for the wrong war at the wrong price when the real enemy is Islamic terrorism + other anti-globalization forces. Well has he said: “Disconnectedness defines danger” and China is quite connected (but in need of reform).
HotAirJosef on March 3, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Patrick,
Chinese conscripts are paid poorly by Chinese standards. Their junior to field grade officers and NCO’s not much better. When you consider they have actually demobilized quite a few units and reduced their active duty numbers, that leaves the vast majority of their budget for systems acquisition and R&D.
Rodney Graves on March 3, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Josef,
You seem to forget that when the Berlin Wall fell we found that the Pentagon had severely underestimated what the Soviets and their allies had been spending on their armed forces as a percentages of GDP.
Rodney Graves on March 3, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Rodney Graves,
You say systems acquisition, I say General’s cousin employment. “Downsizing” is how politicians say graft in any language.
Patrick_Lasswell on March 3, 2008 at 7:14 PM
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I feel all warm and fuzzy!
Seven Percent Solution on March 3, 2008 at 7:15 PM
They`re looking to be a superpower in the mold of the U.S. We have an expansive navy to secure our polictical and economic interest and they likewise want the same.
Also, it helps to have some muscle when you want to muscle in on the other big dog`s turf.
ThePrez on March 3, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Good point. In fact, I did not know that.
But we’re (hopefully) not stupid enough to stumble into war with the PRC.
HotAirJosef on March 3, 2008 at 7:16 PM
In some ways, I worry more about these guys than I do the RoP. The regime makes the Soviets look like care bears. Commies and increased military spending is never a good thing, defensive-based or not.
Oh well, I suppose I should be more concerned about the really important things, like global warming and water boarding at Gitmo. Silly me.
Grayson on March 3, 2008 at 7:25 PM
China saw our (U.S) superior conventional arms on a number of occassions. That power, coupled by a vibrant and resiliant economy and superior communication systems makes the U.S. the clear super power.
If I was China, I’d build too. They want hegemony in their area of the world and as of now they cannot claim it because of us meddlesome Americans.
I also suspect that China isn’t blind to islamic fundementalism, especially in their western provinces and in their neghbors to the south (Malaysia and Indonesia).
The big questions here are:
1. How long will the Democrats continue to prevent our weapon and intelligence advancements?
and
2. What will the Japanese do? Their military is small, but superb. They have a large ratio of officers to enlisted men–meaning they can conscript and train fast. Their problem? Same as in WW2. Small landmass and few natural resources.
and finally,
3. India.
I smell an arms race.
Montana on March 3, 2008 at 7:27 PM
HotAirJosef quoted a person saying “China is America’s natural ally….”
What do you think the significance is that the Chinese government doesn’t think we are natural allies? To my mind, that is far more important than whether or not we are in fact natural allies. If they think we’re not, then we’re not allies.
Anyway, talk of “natural allies” is silly anyway. Japan and the US appear to be something of “natural allies” and yet that didn’t stop them from attacking us in 1941.
In fact, Pearl Harbor came about pretty much exclusively because Japan had a vision of itself as a strong Pacific and East Asian power. In order to effect that reality, Japan needed to dislodge first the European powers from the Pacific, and then destroy American power. They had no designs on Hawaii itself, but instead needed to dislodge America’s hold on the Philippines and its ability to project itself into the western Pacific.
So my point is that it often doesn’t matter what America does or doesn’t do diplomatically or how we view our relationship with China. What matters is what THEY think and what THEY want.
If China wants to expand its power into parts of Asia and the world where it currently doesn’t exist, we really have only 3 options.
1) Let them have it, and let our influence retreat.
2) Build ours and our allies’ militaries to be so powerful (and keep it that way) such that China knows it has no chance of succeeding. (It must be strong enough to leave no margin for error.)
3) Do nothing and await an attack.
Again, these options are only true if you accept my premise that the Chinese do (or might) want to expand their power and influence. But since we don’t have any control over what they want for their nation, I suggest we do something or than wishful thinking.
Nessuno on March 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM
At least most of the Chinese military equipment is built from parts made in China. Let’s hope our military still uses domestic sources, unlike the rest of our economy.
prototype on March 3, 2008 at 7:31 PM
As Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, a respected analyst tries to explain, we need China and China needs us (namely our business). Even the Pentagon report on the PRC had this to say today:
No war w/ PRC anytime soon or ever, boys & girls. Unless you truly, honestly want one.
It’s time for the soft kill on this guy so we can get a hard kill on the DPRK (aka North Korea).
HotAirJosef on March 3, 2008 at 7:36 PM
we buy their cheap goods, they build weapons with the cash.
sounds like the ME and oil…we buy their oil at outrageous prices, they fund militant islam terrorism, pursue nuclear wepons and are building mosques in the USA. who’s in charge of our country?
viahj on March 3, 2008 at 7:39 PM
The Chinese are not the Soviets. To mistake them for such would be a mistake. In some ways they are not as big a threat, and in other ways, they are more dangerous. We should be firm with them, but treat them with respect and friendship. It would be disasterous for both sides if we ever got ourselves into a war. There is no need for another cold war, we should cooperate when we can, push where they are weak, but allow them to develop naturally. Good change does not come overnight.
p40tiger on March 3, 2008 at 7:46 PM
China is not nor will be a military threat.
China is an economic threat.
daileyck1 on March 3, 2008 at 7:57 PM
China wants to conquer us and take back all the seven dollar shovels she sold us and force us to buy nine dollar shovels instead?
China wants to shut down the world economy to prevent a plague of wealthy homegrown all-night-playing-Mahjong fanatics from taking China over?
China wants to invade the west in order to cool down it’s boiling economy?
BL@KBIRD on March 3, 2008 at 8:03 PM
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/2008/1.html
has three essays on dealing with China for the future. Long reads but if you want the in-depth analysis necessary to understand some of the world politics, this magazine is the one to go to.
Bradky on March 3, 2008 at 8:12 PM
My thoughts exactly.
HotAirJosef on March 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM
It’s not only the cheap goods…it’s the unfair trade policies our delightful corporations and politicians back. Add on the gutting of safety standards by those in charge - hey so what if a few Americans die….
We are not only paying for the third world migration to the US by every one who thinks we owe them our money, we are now building China’s military so they can simply take over.
When will our leaders (corporate and political) wake up and realize that the destruction of America will eventually destroy them also. Do these feebs actually believe they are so wonderful and so powerful that the Chinese or the anarchists and communists of the third world won’t destroy them and their families?
unaffiliated on March 3, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Who said anything about a war, laddy? Careful on that jump…
And don’t forget, alliances are always temporary–and usually of convenience. Today’s political climate can easily change tomorrow. 9/10 vs 9/11.
Montana on March 3, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Nearly all of the failed societies of history first crumbled from within before being conquered from without.
The communist/socialists who threaten our way of life are not in Beijing, they are here; in Washington D.C., taking more power for government; in Hollywood, eroding our culture; in the New York media, convincing people that everyone believes this or that; and on the streets, wearing pink shirts and shouting down older, wiser people in a Maoist theory that youth and revolution is better than age and wisdom.
I fear for my country, but I don’t fear China.
p40tiger on March 3, 2008 at 9:01 PM
The Fruits of the Clinton Administration is being being harvested. Obama will will cinch the noose and kick out the chair of what remains of US industrial production capacity. Kid’s are indoctrinated to the point were most would rather learn to be golf pros or video game testers than engineers or scientists actually contributing to something productive.
The North Central USA is the Achilles Heal. Unions are tightening their hold and Socialism has taken root in the mentality of the populace in that region. It where the 5th Column is really the most active.
Egfrow on March 3, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Egfrow on March 3, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Kid’s are indoctrinated to the point were most would rather learn to be golf pros or video game testers than engineers or scientists actually contributing to something productive.
So very true, my last 3 technician hires are not of indigenous stock….locals lament, “its like to really complicated work”!
dmann on March 3, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Nope. The Pentagon has it exactly figured out. What they’re up to is “anti-access” - shutting us out. For this you need ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, air-defense missiles, submarines, mines, advanced interceptors… hey, exactly what they’re building or buying!
Nothing “fortunate” about it. A Chinese carrier would be a big fat target for us. They know this very well. After all, they are totally focused on sinking our carriers…
Lehuster on March 3, 2008 at 10:12 PM
What does that bring them up to? about 20% of the US military expenditure?
Reaps on March 3, 2008 at 10:15 PM
There you go, you’ve just bought into the rationale for the military buying stuff to fight the PRC instead of al Qaeda. Key words: “anti-access”.
Best bet - bring them to the table with a strong negotiator on our side and go for the soft kill so eventually they become a democracy (like the way the Soviets went). Also keep on developing ASAT and ABM weapons, both of which will have use against Kim Jong-il. Sooner or later, we will have to deal with North Korea. Better to have the PRC stay on their side of the Yalu or better still support getting rid of this hermit rather than re-enact the Korean War.
HotAirJosef on March 3, 2008 at 10:36 PM
I disagree Patrick. China has spent a lot of money in South American and did not build a blue water Navy to go water skiing.
Zorro on March 3, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Captain Ed’s missing the whole point.
It’s no relief when we hear China’s upgrading defensive systems (instead of putting these outlays to offensive systems); they are only doing that so they can feel more secure in utilizing their offensive ones.
More than ever, Taiwan has right to feel more and more nervous.
clark smith on March 4, 2008 at 1:48 AM
bring them to the table with a strong negotiator on our side and go for the soft kill so eventually they become a democracy (like the way the Soviets went).
Dream on, sucker. All our trade with China will not lead to a democratic China. It will lead to a strong, authoritarian China.
And you think Russia is a democracy now, or at any time since 1991? Um, no. Not unless you believe form trumps substance.
Sooner or later, we will have to deal with North Korea.
The Norks can be ignored.
Lehuster on March 4, 2008 at 7:11 AM
Taiwan will be the feint. China wants Japan. Revenge!
OldEnglish on March 4, 2008 at 7:14 AM
Sorry to bust your bubble dude, but it was Billy Jeff that allowed the Commerce Dept. to oversee the sale of sensitive materials to China, “our partners in trade”, as well as the laxity in security at Alamogordo, NM where Chinese spies stole EVERY NUKE SECRET WE HAVE. Now the Commies can build ANY nuke in OUR INVENTORY and equip it with a missile that can be pinpointed by GPS to ANY TARGET IN THE WORLD.
Again, Thanks to Billy Jeff Clinton and Hillary too.
jimbo2008 on March 4, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Then we have to agree to disagree.
HotAirJosef on March 4, 2008 at 10:41 AM
What’s with all this “hard kill” on North Korea, anyway? It is a rotten, ineffectual, impoverished, and insignificant shathole. Their nuke and ballistic missile programs are incompetently run and basically worthless. They are no threat whatsoever - certainly no threat that the ROK can’t handle with some US airpower as backup - so why are you all hot to go get a “hard kill” on them?
Lehuster on March 4, 2008 at 11:09 AM