The propaganda starts: The US can whip China in a troop tussle...

[Deja Q]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/23/uttm/main1070315.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

China's Military, In Perspective

First, China IS changing its military – making it more of a 21st century force by spending money on technology while actually shrinking the number of soldiers it has.

And if you want to know why – the answer comes from great P.R. by the defense department … our defense department.

When the U.S. showed off its precision bombing technology in Iraq, the Chinese sat up and took notice. This was something they couldn’t do, and couldn’t defend against.

That’s when the Chinese military budget started climbing.

And increased spending is what ruffled the feathers of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who visited China recently…and while here chided the Chinese to their faces, daring them to come clean. Rumsfeld suggested that the actual expenditures by the Chinese are “something like two to three times” of what the official figures suggest.

(Snip)

Chinese say their military budget is $30 billion dollars. Using the Rumsfeld theory, we’ll make it three times that … about $90-billion dollars.

And how does that compare to the U.S.? It’s about one forth of what we spend. That’s right…fellow taxpayers…one forth. Because the US defense budget comes in at about $400 billion dollars.

(snip)

Which is why a lot of Asian leaders are dubious about alarm bells ringing at the Pentagon over China’s military changes. The numbers just don’t add up to a crisis.

China’s leaders say they have other priorities for spending. They want to make life better. A tough job in a country where there are 900 million peasant farmers and farm families on average earn less than a thousand dollars a year.

Article has MUCH more; the final 2 paragraphs being very eyebrow-raising...

But didn't Chinese government officials recently tell * in hush-hush tones that the US would lose?

Aren't the Chinese more populous? And, because they don't think they've believe they've been lied to yet, are bound to be more determined to fight for their country? (The US has a teeny tiny little problem in this department and enlistment figures more than corroborate it.)

And should we really be scared at this blithering? Neither side has the chutzpah for one thing. I refuse to be scared over such empty bickering. And the US has far more to lose thanks to selling out... well... EVERYTHING to a country it's told us is a big enemy. (or are they an enemy? I don't know! I usually support my friends and starve my enemies; unless US citizens are enemies and the Chinese our friends... :shrug: )

[jimshoes]

1. Trial ballon for a new

more scary bogey man than Al Qaida? Or just another dick swinging contest?

[Deja Q]

2. ...

Most of us know China is a fascist nation we should never have trusted, probably...

As for dick swinging contest, I could make a very off-color joke right now. And even for my bizarre standards of comedy, what I'm not saying would go way too far! (and even then people might misconstrue that I'd be supporting the Chinese over *. That is not the case... * versus the Chinese, I'd have to support *. No questions asked. * might lie but at least he gives a false hope. Under brutal Chinese fascism, there is no hope.)

[jimshoes]

4. The point i was trying to make was

simply that with *'s war on terra tanking in the polls, I'm thinking the hawks in Washington are looking for a new bad guy. Like the Ruskies of the cold war. China would be perfect. They're commies still, and every wingnut in the USA still hates the commies whether they're Russian commies or Korean commies or Cuban commies or Chinese commies. If it ever did come down to an actual hot war between us and them, of course I am an American first. I would hate to have to learn Chinese at my advanced age. I also believe * has for all intents and puposes decimated our military forces and for that reason I would not want to have to prove our battleworthy-ness just now. Not to the Chinese or anyone else for that matter. The part about dick swinging contest was a bit off color but that is how the pentagon strikes me at times.

[NewJeffCT]

7. Odd thing is

that China & Chinese people are way more popular with the American people & businesses than they are on Capitol Hill, by like a 5-1 margin. It's a message for those inside the Beltway.

[Up2Late]

9. That's because the chinese are an almost unlimited supply of...

...cheap and easy to exploit labor. The average Chinese worker gets paid pennies on the Dollar compared to American, and even Mexican labor.

[Deja Q]

10. Doesn't matter; already been said better

[Up2Late]

3. Keep this in mind, 1.1 BILLION Chinese People v. 380 Million Americans

We should NOT want to get into any type of War with China, it would be the bloodiest war in the history of the world. Only a lunatic would...

Oh, never mind.

[NewJeffCT]

6. actually, China has about 1.3 billion people, we have under 300 million

not counting millions of Chinese in the US, Canada, the UK, Russia and elsewhere.

and, our population is a bit under 300 million, 295 or so last I checked.

[Up2Late]

8. Oh that's right, I can't seem to remember if it's 285 or 385 Million...

...but I think you get the point I was making. Their are a LOT more Chinese than Americans, AND, last time I checked, it was 54% female to 46% male ratio Americans. Reverse that for the Chinese, they have more men than women, so more men available for military service.

[Deja Q]

11. Bingo.

Like I said, more populace. More dedicated to their country because they don't feel they've been misled.

Of course, what would get Americans to enlist? Hatred over offshoring, perhaps? (That's hypothetical. And it's not the Chinese working/slave classes, it's the government. And that's all it always boils down to anyway; nitpicking against governments whose beliefs differ from ours.)

Attempting a war would be bad. A conventional war, that is. And there's been talk of "tactical nukes" for some time, apparently. I don't think China has that technology... but who'd need it? One 0ld-sk00l nuke would be enough.

[Igel]

5. It wasn't widely reported in the '70s and '80s,

but the USSR's military budget was absolutely no larger than billed, more more significant than inferred.

First, they paid their soldiers far less. Think order of magnitude, or more. This means that their budget didn't need to be as big.

Second, their technology was frequently reverse engineered, or more basic. Why develop cutting edge munitions when (a) the nifty stuff could be had for virtually no development funds, and (b) rough-and-tumble hardware was cheaper for every-day use, anyway?

Third, exchange-rate-based budgets are meaningless: the USSR didn't import arms, so only the value of the budget in rubles in Russia mattered, not how it fared on the international exchange markets. I mean, think about your household budget. If you had converted your income in $ to rubles in 1975 and moved to Tver', you'd be living truly high on the hog.

Pretty much the same holds for China. Their budget figures tell me nothing, except that most of the inferences I've heard about them are fairly meaningless.