Posted on 03/05/2014 3:36:37 PM PST by SkyPilot
China plans to spend $132 billion on its military as it asserts its maritime interests, putting it at odds with the US military preeminence in the Pacific.
China made headlines today with its annual military budget, up 12.2 percent to $132 billion dollars this year. That's about one quarter of the $495 billion military budget that President Obama presented to Congress yesterday.
Predictably, official commentary here stresses that China is a peace-loving nation with no aggressive intentions. But Beijing has also signaled its ambitions to be the power that holds the ring in the western Pacific, and those ambitions have been spelled out, arguably clearer than ever before, in a direct challenge to US military preeminence.
China needs a powerful military, explained Fu Ying, spokeswoman for the National People’s Congress, on Tuesday because “if some country provokes or undermines consensus or even damages peace and order in the region, then China must respond effectively.”
On Wednesday the state-run news agency Xinhua followed up with a clearly worded commentary. “As a responsible major stakeholder in regional peace and stability, China needs sufficient strength to prevent hot-headed players from misjudgment and thus forestall conflict and war, so as to maintain a favorable environment for the socioeconomic development of all in the neighborhood.”
For the last 30 years, China has concentrated on getting rich, leaving to America and its allies the complicated and expensive business of ensuring international peace and security. Some in Washington have even accused Beijing of “freeloading.” That era is now over.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
They get a lot more for their money.
And they’re able to do this... thanks to the “free trade” morons here in the US.
Yet another brilliant “own goal” for “free trade,” as usual.
given that Bathhouse Barry and Chuckie are gutting the US military thereby leaving to door open in the pacific, this would be an optimal to build up.
China has millions of military age men who can’t find a woman because of that country’s predilection for sex-selected abortions and the 1 child policy. How else is China going to defuse their frustration? Military adventurism — that’s how.
At the same time, the west is becoming wussified — not a good confluence of social trends.
Right on!
1. Given $100, China puts more of that $100 into weapons and less into personnel pay. The USSA puts more of that $100 into personnel pay and less into weapons (well, admittedly mmillions are going into “green bullets” which cost more money, but are less hostile to “climate change”.
2. Yes, China has more young men and fewer young women due to “1 family, 1 child” policy. But who knows, maybe China will invade large USSA cities and like the Vikings of old, carry off spoils to include women. Which, based on experience in the singles dating scene, would be a gain to us and a loss to them......if they ran off with a lot of the Liberal, feminist, “don’t need a man” women with the character of Miley Cyrus or Madonna or their like.
And Asian manufacturing could produce a whole lot more with much lower currencies and less expensive management.
Active Duty ping.
No communist dictatorship has even given the public a TRUE military budget.
Add another 10-15% to what they say and you’ll be somewhere in or near the ballpark.
One of my late friends was a Soviet contracts officer who dealt with the KGB’s secret military procurement program. They hid military items inside of non-military spending, such as making machineguns at a Samovar plant. Believe it was Tula 555.
The 1970’s “B Team” showed that, just from non-classified sources, the Soviet military budget was at least twice the announced size, if not larger (Collins and Graham report about 1976).
Remember, “You can always trust the communists to be communists” so lying is one of their tactics.
“They get a lot more for their money.”
Yes they do, but not because they are cheap.
They are spending on self defense and force projection within 200-300 miles of their border.
The US is spending next to nothing on self defense but is spending on force projection around the globe.
Projecting force a long way from your homeland is really expensive.
“maybe China will invade large USSA cities and like the Vikings of old, carry off spoils to include women. Which, based on experience in the singles dating scene, would be a gain to us and a loss to them”
I think you are spot on. The US women are safe. Now the women in Thailand and the Phillipines might have something to worry about.
I get mad at my fellow Canadians for supporting this.
When I buy anything, tools, food etc, I look for the made in Canada or made in US stamp.
I might pay more for some things, but I’d rather that and support the west than support some country who wants what I have and would love a chance to take it by force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.