China's rapidly expanding military may be changing US view from benign to serious security challeng

According to Washington Times story, the Defense Intelligence Agency is looking for a new China Analyst and has advertised it is doing so in an unusually candid announcement. The story says that the analyst will advise top officials on Chinese military operations. There is a sentiment in government that "realists" in the intelligence community are gaining more influence and changing the usual view on China's military. The usual view from the intelligence community was "benign China" meaning it poses little or no threat and is only nominally a nuclear-armed communist state. The "realist" view is that China is the most serious national security challenge and that the US military needs to take steps now to deter and defeat in a future conflict.

Story also says

The new analyst also will collaborate with the Pentagon, other government agencies and foreign and other U.S. partners “to fill intelligence gaps and resolve analytic differences on critical issues.” “Intelligence gaps” is code for what U.S. officials say are the numerous shortcomings in finding out about the Chinese military’s weapons programs, and strategy and tactics.

Full story:

DIA China Analyst sought

Also, same author above mentions that China is flexing their muscles again by possibly conducting a long range ballistic missile test. For the past week they were conducting naval exercises in the Bohai Sea

Amid heightened tensions between China and its Asian neighbors, China’s military is holding naval exercises in the Bohai Sea — not far from Japan. The exercises are being closely watched, as China announced a sea-closure area near the nuclear submarine base at Huludao, where China builds its Type 094 ballistic-missile submarines, called the Jin class by the Pentagon. The exercises began last week and will continue through Friday. Based on the announced closure area, U.S. officials said one possible activity could be a second JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic-missile test. China last conducted a JL-2 test in the same area Aug. 21. The Chinese military exercises are being conducted not far from joint U.S.-Japan military exercises that ended last week and involved some 47,000 personnel near the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed by China near Okinawa. China calls the islands the Diayoutao. China this week pressured leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, not to hold international discussions on South China Sea disputes with China. Beijing is opposing ASEAN’s efforts to reach a binding agreement on a code of conduct in the South China Sea, where China recently claimed up to 70 percent of the international waters as its maritime territory. Ben Rhodes, deputy White House national security adviser, said the sea dispute should be settled peacefully. The issue was to be raised in a meeting between President Obama and outgoing Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, Mr. Rhodes said. He said the disputes such as those regarding the South China Sea “need to be discussed in a multilateral context so that we can reaffirm the principles of maritime security that can guide the resolution to something like the South China Sea.” “The U.S. believes that any solution has to be consistent with international law, has to preserve the free flow of commerce that is important not just to the countries in this region, but to the world,” Mr. Rhodes told reporters. “The U.S. is not a claimant in the South China Sea, but we have significant interest there, given its role in the global economy.”

This disturbs me...... We all know the last couple decades of US Foreign Policy have at least held public focus in the Middle East. Prior to Obama winning re-election, I didn't pay much attention to all this. I honestly hadn't expected that to happen. Now, it takes on a brutal reality if we're to take Obama and Biden at their words. Either China is becoming a threat to us and world balance.....OR.. we're creating a new threat to focus on and just assume China will play the training dummy as other nations have served in the past. I mean, there has to be a boogeyman somewhere to justify military budgets out beyond Obama's second term, by his own projections, still running well over a Half a trillion per year. (??)

I'm starting to think of all the statements over the past couple years and focus on moving Naval power and overall influence into the West Pacific. ...Indeed.. Much has been said and done regarding the Asia-Pacific rim being the scene of next major focus. My question is...does it actually have to be or is this more manufactured nonsense?

China i building a very robust and ..as fast as they can physically do it...a technologically respectable military. I see defensive power....LOTS AND LOTS of defensive power. I don't see China making grand Capital ships and fleets for offensive power. Only we're doing that. Odd, isn't it?

China is building up their militery. Makes sense really, considering the
west are busy starting illegal wars China is not stupid. They want to be
ready, just in case the same happens to them.

China has shown no signs that they want war. They have got
where they are today without war. The only way china will
become a threat, is if they are pushed.

reply to post by Jay-morris


I have to agree with you there with some reservations. Economically it wouldn't be wise for them to get aggressive now, but, what would they do if war breaks out in the Middle East? Would they, along with Russia, get involved or stand back?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Great analysis Wrabbit. It is disturbing to think we could end up in another Cold War. In our present military condition when you hear about cuts in funding, eliminating certain hardware and Obama declaring that our general's don't even "want that," I worry that while China is "rapidly expanding" and we are downsizing, it could level the playing field, and sooner than later.

Originally posted by Jay-morris
China is building up their militery. Makes sense really, considering the
west are busy starting illegal wars China is not stupid. They want to be
ready, just in case the same happens to them.

China has shown no signs that they want war. They have got
where they are today without war. The only way china will
become a threat, is if they are pushed.

What illegal war has the west been doing?

China has only got to the position that they are in by using war. WW2, Korean war, war against its own people. now they are trying to bully japan(its not working), and the other countries in SE Asia.

Originally posted by Jay-morris
China has shown no signs that they want war. They have got
where they are today without war. The only way china will
become a threat, is if they are pushed.

China has shown many signs that they want war, they just don't want it with the west.

Well, not until they are firmly entrenched as the only SE Asia power.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
China i building a very robust and ..as fast as they can physically do it...a technologically respectable military. I see defensive power....LOTS AND LOTS of defensive power. I don't see China making grand Capital ships and fleets for offensive power. Only we're doing that. Odd, isn't it?

Why is that odd?

Look at the different positions each country is in.

One is naturally defended by geography, and has no actual threat to her power anywhere close by.

The other has multiple access points and two other potential super powers as neighbours.

reply to post by peck420

Well, it's odd in a sickening kind of way not a mind boggling confusion sort of way. China is building a very strong defense, as any nation has the right to....ourselves included. After all, why shouldn't they? We almost have a Combat command dedicated just to them....Well.. Almost. They have to share a bit.



...and then there are some figures that just make you stop, shake your head and scream WTF WASHINGTON?!



There is having a robust military and then there is spending as if the whole defense of every last person on the planet is somehow our personal responsibility. Now unless there is some 2012 style threat with the Arks being built in a mountain somewhere...I can't understand where all that money goes.

However, indeed...It's odd that a nation with the sheer size, ambition and power of China spends so little (Thats a world % chart, not GDP per nation ) While we spend so much. I know what Sun Tzu would say on the matter but that's hardly reassuring as someone on the American side. I'm pretty sure our current crop of leaders didn't read that book....although I know Chinese ones have. They wrote it of course.

Originally posted by Jay-morris
China has shown no signs that they want war. They have got
where they are today without war. The only way china will
become a threat, is if they are pushed.

Really...some of the Dynasties such as Ming, Qing, wow...such as Tibet, Mongolia...the list is like a mile long, you might want to check yourself on "Chinese Aggressiveness"....quite a bit of history there, especially to make such a blind blanket statement.


MG

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
However, indeed...It's odd that a nation with the sheer size, ambition and power of China spends so little (Thats a world % chart, not GDP per nation

) While we spend so much. I know what Sun Tzu would say on the matter but that's hardly reassuring as someone on the American side.

I'm pretty sure our current crop of leaders didn't read that book....although I know Chinese ones have. They wrote it of course.

Er..."The Art of War" required reading. China does not play by the same reporting rules that the U.S. does for expenditures....of course, on this site, there is no fault in China's reporting. Just the U.S's. Always nice to point a finger and ignore the truth.

Furthermore, if you would like to view "Jane's", the Chinese are spending much more than that little picture; and that is what "Jane's" can discern/estimate.

MG

reply to post by missed_gear


Okay, that argument is just weak and the rationalizations don't work near as well as they did when spending was rational and the Soviets were the enemy with as much aggression as we had.. It isn't that China isn't spending quite a bit, because they are. So is Russia. Russia is now fully replacing and updating both it's strategic submarine and bomber fleets with models that will probably work quite well, actually. The sheer width and breadth of United States Military "presence" for lack of a better word, is awesome though....and not necessarily in any positive sense.

The second chart you'd questioned is sourced on it's face for who produced it and those are among the accepted sources for military data and statistics in the world. Links to contradictory figures ....and not just opinions... are greatly appreciated.

Here are a few more facts though......

II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War’”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries:

800 in Africa,
97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia),
40,258 in South Korea,
40,045 in Japan,
491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean,
100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore,
113 in Thailand,
200 in Australia,
and 16,601 Afloat.

IV. The Operational Cost of the Worldwide Military Network

US defense spending (excluding the costs of the Iraq war) have increased from 404 in 2001 to 626 billion dollars in 2007 according to data from the Washington based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. US defense spending is expected to reach 640 billion dollars in 2008.

Source

The obscene overspending of the Department of Defense is so ....SO VERY FAR.... overblown to anything rational, it's hard to imagine. The figures themselves....are just mind boggling when looking at things like NASA..the entire agency, world wide and into space..ALL of it...is under 20 Billion. Yet the Pentagon ....without counting the wars....is well over half a trillion?

Ugh... Yeah, I can see why China is a little concerned and rightfully so. It's stated, plainly and repeated U.S. Policy over the last 4 years to make the West-Pacific area of operations a high Military priority. I'd be worried too if I weren't 100% on the good side of the U.S. and hearing that about where I lived. Time will tell....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Ok. It is not about shells, ships, bullets and bodies to field. It is 3:1 to (put one in the field), that is logistics.

Family housing, medical, transportation, extensions...the list is long.

Social Security beats defense, add in Medicare and Medicaid. That brings it 2:1.

China does not report what we do, they cheat. They lie and steal. The Russians 'dream' of a day to equal our Navy again. They are to broke to do so. If we conflict with China militarily, they lose a great deal of notes. Think about that.

My logic, a fallacy? Weak argument? I do not care if there are 800 troops in Africa. That is nothing. Yes 40k in S.Korea, 40k in Japan at any given time...we promised that years ago. We also have joint bases, joint ventures; treaties to uphold along with other allies.

So, China, with almost no, if any, power projection. Is better than the U.S. because of their reported spending? Wow...China uses slave labor, prison labor, indentured servants, conscripts, forced camps...I mean really?....Why not talk about that? They are as a nation very aggressive yet can not solve the line with Russia. Wants to be the card carrier for N.Korea and cause issues in the Mid-East. As much as you would like to give them credit, they are decades behind.

Nice try.

MG

poor military industrial complex must be running out of money.
drum up another threat, turn on the manufacturing base, create some artificial wealth!

reply to post by missed_gear


Okay, we seem to be at an impasse. I'd still love anything at all to be sourced... I'm not buying your argument and adding more opinion isn't helping. However, I'll try again with a new set. These are a different way of seeing the data and for a different year. Again, the original data source is The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

(This one shows spending to individual national GDP)= %)


Source

The US doesn't simply spend more..... The U.S. spent well over HALF the total on Military related items ON EARTH in 2007. Now we can go on with the liar defense of saying other nations spend 100's of times more than they really claim and it's all lies based on that....which is what it literally takes to match the near TRILLION dollars the United States is up to now in Defense and Intelligence combined....but c'mon. Blaming the whole planet together still doesn't make the COMBINED MASS amount to much more than we're spending. (It came just over 50% compared to us in 2011, as the graphic below shows) This isn't sad, it's horrifying.

Variety makes for solid data though, so here is a final look at why China might feel a little....odd... This one supplied by International Institute for Strategic Studies. Now this last one actually shows us UNDER 50% of Planetary spending on Military related things.....but two things make it a real hard thing to smile about. It's a few years later...and look what happened to to numbers in getting there. They grew! ...and in 2011. Well beyond Bush's little disaster period. err.... I could also note the White House projections for United States defense spending, excluding intelligence, sees nothing coming below a Half Trillion well out beyond 2022. The band just keeps on playing..........forever by the appearances.



There simply is no excusing that or even making a half way decent explanation. I've been into the line items and broken down individual pages of the budget. Many times. It doesn't track....and China definitely would have a little cause to show concern. If you figure you might spot something I've missed though, you're more than welcome to make sense of it better than I have Complete Unabridged Federal Budget Packages 1996-2013

(If China is spending more...that's fine... but over 700% more? They'd need that and more just to match us and we've been at this almost hysterical imbalance for many years now.)

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by Jay-morris
China has shown no signs that they want war. They have got
where they are today without war. The only way china will
become a threat, is if they are pushed.

China has shown many signs that they want war, they just don't want it with the west.

Well, not until they are firmly entrenched as the only SE Asia power.

Really? All i see are people making up excuses because they cant handle the dact that china may be the next top dog super power. The west is doing all the invading, and some of it illegal too, not china. China is building defences because they know about this threat, and would want to be ready when we decide to go for them.

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by Jay-morris
China has shown no signs that they want war. They have got
where they are today without war. The only way china will
become a threat, is if they are pushed.

Really...some of the Dynasties such as Ming, Qing, wow...such as Tibet, Mongolia...the list is like a mile long, you might want to check yourself on "Chinese Aggressiveness"....quite a bit of history there, especially to make such a blind blanket statement.


MG

Oh come on! How many years ago are you talking? Yes, china went into tibet, but tibet was a hell hole at the time ruled by supposed peaceful Buddhist, that were actually killing,starving, and enslaving their own people. And historians are divided that tibet has always been part of china.

Erm, why dd we go into all these middle east countries? Was it to free the peoplE? but thats okay to you because we are the mighty west who's only interest was to free the people lol lol

China does not need to go to war. Look where they have got without war. They dont need to start illegal wars and invade other countries. You can carry on believing they are a threat, but if there is going to be a ww3, the west will start it. We have already pi**ed off so many middle east countries with our excuses to invade them. .

Yikes! American bashers. China sympathizers. And you're Americans. Why don't any of you ever recognize the good that that awesome military has done for this world. We've freed people from dictators. Dictators who've killed by the tens of thousands. We've used that awesome military to assist in disasters. Just our presence in parts of the world has deter'd wars. We can go on and on about all the good our military has done, and I can show sources, but what for? You know its true but you insist that America is the evil empire. There would be a lot more chaos in the world if our military wasn't what it is. Wrabbit stated above "why is it our responsibility?" Because we can. We built it up during the Cold War and now we have it, so why not make the world a better place? Does anyone really think that China wouldn't be throwing its weight around in SE Asia if we didn't have such a large presence in South Korea or Japan?

reply to post by Rezlooper

I think you make some real good points there and it's very true that the U.S. Navy's most pressing duty outside the last 10 years (and maybe during it too...this hasn't been a Naval war by any stretch up to now) has been disaster relief. From the Indonesian Tsunami to the Haiti Quake and various assists given to boaters and merchants in distress world wide. Fair enough on all of that and very good reasons not to slash funding like an evil Walmart price chopper.

On the other hand, I'd just say that the numbers do suggest a whole lot of room for cost cutting. Troops actually only represent a % of that figure and a smaller one than most may think. Most of that vanishes into the black holes of production, development and research to get there. A couple things to consider...

The growth of defense export deals has led to a record backlog of
$327 billion at mid-year 2011. “We have in excess of 13,000 active
cases with more than 165 countries and institutions,” adding up to about $327 billion, said Vice Admiral Bill Landay at a Pentagon news briefing ahead of the Paris Air Show. (Source: Bloomberg)

...with some startling details I didn't know before finding this today.

Much of the growth during this period has been in Asia due to concerns over China’s growing military power and tensions between North Korea and South Korea, and in the Middle East due to concern over Iran’s military ambitions. Some highlights from 2011 include:

• Saudi Arabia will buy 84 F-15s
and upgrades to 70 others,
worth $30 billion (Bloomberg)

• India selects Dassault Rafale fighters worth $10 billion (BBC)

• Japan selects F-35 for next
generation fighter, in a deal
worth approximately $8 billion (Washington Post)

• Taiwan to upgrade F-16 fleet
worth $6 billion (Business Week)

• The United Arab Emirates buys THAAD missiles worth $3.5 billion (Bloomberg)

• India buys 10 C-17s worth
$2 billion (India Times)

Future export opportunities include:
• Turkey affirms plans to buy 100 F-35s worth $16 billion (Reuters)
• South Korea gears up for a jet fighter competition (Defense Industry Daily)

A&D 2011 year in review and 2012 forecast

I very much support a strong U.S. defense and military. I just don't believe we need to be spending the raw equivalent it would cost to replace most of it.......every year. lol.... There must be a logical middle there somewhere.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Some of those figures go towards the war, and some go to the Foreign Military Financing program, under the Foreign Military Sales program.

But one big reason spending has jumped is the fact that the Air Force, and the Navy are getting very long in the tooth, and are basically having to be replaced wholesale. The Air Force was so enamored of the F-22 program, that they ignored everything else. So now they are in the position that their fighter fleet is getting older than some of their pilots (the average age is about the same as a pilot first starting out). From 1995 to 2000 the Air Force had zero fighters delivered. From 2002-2009, they were all F-22s.

About 10% or so of the F-15A-C fleet is at 90% of the expected life cycle. The Air Force solution? Extend the life cycle more. The entire F-15 fleet has been reduced to 245 aircraft, all of which are over 60% into their life cycle (as of 2008).

The F-16 has over 1000 aircraft in the US, approximately 25% of which have had cracks in either their wings, or fuselage bulkheads. This fleet is in the 50-60% range as well for their expected life cycle. Again, the Air Force solution is to extend the life cycle farther.

That's not even getting into the fact that the KC-135 and B-52s were all delivered by the 1960s (the YOUNGEST B-52 in the inventory is 60 years old this year). The military leadership has been gaga over the newest shiny stealth aircraft, and have let the rest of the military go to **** trying to get as many as they could, and now it's going to come back and bite them hard.