China wants a global second place military scaled to deter but not threaten the US

A leaked Chinese military document indicates that China is shifting from deterrence and protecting its territory to looking beyond its borders. China desperately wants a comprehensive protection of their security around the globe.

A challenger with a strong military might push the dominant power into unleashing a preventive war before the challenger gets any stronger unless the emerging power is so militarily strong that it can deter a conflict.

China’s leaders want to be able to
1. deter conflict
2. protect growing global interests (all of the Belt and Road projects)
3. Expand interests and influence around the world
4. Maintain party control over the military
5. China wants to be able to bully smaller powers

China believes the US is a slower vehicle on a curve which can be passed by China.

Solid Second Place

China is the second place global economy.

China knows that it does not want to truly challenge the US globally but being a solid second place military is needed to protect global interests.

The US is way out ahead of China militarily. In particular in regards to nuclear weapons.

China does not want to pay to become the world’s policeman or take on those responsibilities. China just wants to avoid being bullied by the world’s policeman.

China does not have a comfortable second place military position. China will need a larger Airforce, Marines and Navy to protect its growing global interests. Getting to the 50-70% level numerically while matching and keeping place with US technology would be a solid deter but not threaten level. Although in some areas like submarines China could get more equipment but have them not designed to overmatch in both numbers and technology.

I think China will want to maintain this strong second place balance for at least the next 20 years. It would be costly and not successful for China to attempt any threatening build up before 2040. Plus exceeding the US in conventional forces still leaves a nuclear conflict.

China will be number one in using technology to spy its own and other people and to maintain party and Xi control.

China wants a smaller but technologically competent force

China has about 600 modern aircraft.

The USA air force operates more than 5,369 military aircraft, 406 ICBMs and 170 military satellites. The US has over 2000 fighters and 150 bombers. About 1200 are F15 and F16. The US has a combined 300 stealth F22 and F35s. The F35s will build up and replace F16 and F18 fighters. The US Navy has about 900 F18s. The US Marines have 200 F18s and 38 F35Bs.

China could build up to half the US number of modern aircraft by 2030. China wants to solidly exceed Taiwan, India and Japan. After the 2030’s as India progresses then China would build more to stay ahead of India.

Shifting from army to Marines

China is expanding its marine corp to become the second largest in the world.

China might station up to 10,000 marines, navy seamen and other personnel in its African base at Djibouti.

China is expanding their marine forces from 20,000 up to 100,000. The US has 186,000 marines and about 40,000 reserves. A few other Asian countries are in the range of 20,000 to 30,000 marines. China is mainly transferring army units to the marines.

Safely passing on a curve

Decades down the road if China’s economy exceeds the US by well over double and China is continuing to spend half the US level on the military on a GDP basis. China could consider if it worth the effort and risk to bump to matching the US on percentage level of military spending.

However, if China has deterred conflict and protected and expanded its interests then why would China press for military dominance?

As Sun Tzu said

The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.

186 thoughts on “China wants a global second place military scaled to deter but not threaten the US”

  1. Totally wrong article China is the second place global economy. -> Noi it is the first since 2014 China knows that it does not want to truly challenge the US globally but being a solid second place military is needed to protect global interests. -> No because there is nothing to challenge about the US globally . The US has lost Crimea to Russia, Iraq to Iran, Vietnam and Assad still in power I think China will want to maintain this strong second place balance for at least the next 20 years. It would be costly and not successful for China to attempt any threatening build up before 2040. Plus exceeding the US in conventional forces still leaves a nuclear conflict. -> China does not need that as you do not becomenumber one with tanks any more China is expanding its marine corp to become the second largest in the world. -> Irrelevant to the point

    Reply
  2. China wants a global second place military scaled to deter but not threaten the US until the oppurtunity to take first place comes up.

    Reply
  3. Totally wrong articleChina is the second place global economy. -> Noi it is the first since 2014 China knows that it does not want to truly challenge the US globally but being a solid second place military is needed to protect global interests. -> No because there is nothing to challenge about the US globally . The US has lost Crimea to Russia Iraq to Iran Vietnam and Assad still in power I think China will want to maintain this strong second place balance for at least the next 20 years. It would be costly and not successful for China to attempt any threatening build up before 2040. Plus exceeding the US in conventional forces still leaves a nuclear conflict.-> China does not need that as you do not becomenumber one with tanks any more China is expanding its marine corp to become the second largest in the world.-> Irrelevant to the point

    Reply
  4. China wants a global second place military scaled to deter but not threaten the US until the oppurtunity to take first place comes up.

    Reply
  5. This is very wong, Joe. There is no responsibility for the USA to be ranked first in measures China is interested in, really. Having spent time in China, uneducated rednecks are really something both countries share.

    Reply
  6. They are stealing some of it but China is still 20 years or more behind. China produces no civilian aircraft, military aircraft or any type of jet engine that is even on par with what the US was building 30 years ago. F-22 is 20 now, China still does not have a fighter that is even close to matching it. The B-52 is over 60 and China is still lagging it. It will take China 20 year just to get half of the current US carrier force, if they devote a huge amount of resources to it. then there is rocketry, where SpaceX has a 10-15 year lead on everyone. If America completely stagnates for a decade or two China might catch up, at the moment its probably more like gaining a year on the US every 5-10 years. At that rate it will be 2100 by the time they are on the same terms. China currently gets 15% of its energy abroad, that is growing rapidly. The US only gets 7-10% of its energy imported. China is a net food importer and about 10% of their food is imported. US is a major food exporter producing nearly double what it consumes. Food security is an issue for China as is the huge aging population that is beginning to emerge.

    Reply
  7. It is USA’s own responsibility to maintain its first place in the world, please do not blame others if you, the American, fails your own duty, just like don’t blame others stealing your technology if you, the American, fails to keep up the invention competition. Only uneducated reckneck and sour grape behaves so disgracefully.

    Reply
  8. The most lethal weapon the American has is big mouth loose cannon propaganda that no one in the world can beat. Naz1’s propaganda is child play comparing to what the American is capable of and doing.

    Reply
  9. Totally wrong reply.China is the second place global economy. -> Noi it is the first since 2014 -> inconsistent with global statistics.The US has lost Crimea to Russia Iraq to Iran Vietnam and Assad still in power -> Haha what is this babble and how does it relate?I usually just laugh at this crap but was a little bored so…poke…

    Reply
  10. This is very wong Joe. There is no responsibility for the USA to be ranked first in measures China is interested in really. Having spent time in China uneducated rednecks are really something both countries share.

    Reply
  11. They are stealing some of it but China is still 20 years or more behind. China produces no civilian aircraft military aircraft or any type of jet engine that is even on par with what the US was building 30 years ago. F-22 is 20 now China still does not have a fighter that is even close to matching it. The B-52 is over 60 and China is still lagging it. It will take China 20 year just to get half of the current US carrier force if they devote a huge amount of resources to it. then there is rocketry where SpaceX has a 10-15 year lead on everyone. If America completely stagnates for a decade or two China might catch up at the moment its probably more like gaining a year on the US every 5-10 years. At that rate it will be 2100 by the time they are on the same terms. China currently gets 15{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of its energy abroad that is growing rapidly. The US only gets 7-10{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of its energy imported. China is a net food importer and about 10{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of their food is imported. US is a major food exporter producing nearly double what it consumes. Food security is an issue for China as is the huge aging population that is beginning to emerge.

    Reply
  12. It is USA’s own responsibility to maintain its first place in the world please do not blame others if you the American fails your own duty just like don’t blame others stealing your technology if you the American fails to keep up the invention competition. Only uneducated reckneck and sour grape behaves so disgracefully.

    Reply
  13. The most lethal weapon the American has is big mouth loose cannon propaganda that no one in the world can beat. Naz1’s propaganda is child play comparing to what the American is capable of and doing.

    Reply
  14. Point is that when you have virtually no enemies you do not need fighter planes that much And China has lots of ICBMs and second strike capability

    Reply
  15. Look at the listof countries GDP PPP and learn kid It is related to the fact that the US did not want Crimea to be part of Russian and failed, did not want Assad in power and failed, did not want Iran to take over Iraq and failed, did not want Vietnam to become Comminist and failed Learn, kid, learn

    Reply
  16. Totally wrong reply. China is the second place global economy. -> Noi it is the first since 2014 -> inconsistent with global statistics. The US has lost Crimea to Russia, Iraq to Iran, Vietnam and Assad still in power -> Haha, what is this babble and how does it relate? I usually just laugh at this crap but was a little bored so…poke…

    Reply
  17. Point is that when you have virtually no enemies you do not need fighter planes that much And China has lots of ICBMs and second strike capability

    Reply
  18. Look at the listof countries GDP PPP and learn kid It is related to the fact that the US did not want Crimea to be part of Russian and failed did not want Assad in power and failed did not want Iran to take over Iraq and failed did not want Vietnam to become Comminist and failedLearn kid learn

    Reply
  19. I’m really about done looking at comments on posts like this. Our resident trolls, whether it’s for fifty cents or for fun, have to chime in every other comment, bring nothing to the discussion but repeated iterations of The Big Lie (look it up), and insults. It was amusing for a (very) short while, but now it is spam. Brian: We all know who they are, and Vuukle may allow you to set up an autoban for posters using certain words (the ones like to use as gratuitous insults). Eliminating a lot of their background noise might really raise the bar quite a bit for rational discussion (which I think is what you would want) and would probably up your views with newer viewers not being put off by it and leaving. I know I sometimes stay away for periods of time, or just avoid certain kinds of articles, because of it. It doesn’t work like the editorials section of the printed paper, where the editor deliberately publishes crackpot letters to get a rise out of readers and, hopefully, more subscriptions.

    Reply
  20. The idea of allowing US to stay as a global hegemon, deciding about security issues of planet and maintaining peace makes sense; Chinese are going to be able to proceed with their development plans, using their growing position to form some kind of understanding with US, while leeching off US security architecture. In this way they will avoid Kindleberger trap-when major provider of world security and stability vanishes, creating chaos and desruption; and perhaps the Thucydides trap will be avoided too (when grow of one power pushes other to war with it in order to stay atop). However one may wonder-if China will stay no 2 willingly…. what if something happens and US is no longer no 1? Then automatically China rises to global hegemon position, and they will be forced to fill the role of global peace provider. Additionally one can ask question whether China will be willing to stay no 2 willingly for a long period of time. Germany in XIX century had similar idea-to stay in the middle, not to aggrevate other powers, not be too assertive or agressive, keep its navy growth in check and allow its economy to grow… but the moment Bismarck was sacked, Kaiser started to do the exact opposite , leading to World War I.

    Reply
  21. I’m really about done looking at comments on posts like this. Our resident trolls whether it’s for fifty cents or for fun have to chime in every other comment bring nothing to the discussion but repeated iterations of The Big Lie (look it up) and insults. It was amusing for a (very) short while but now it is spam. Brian: We all know who they are and Vuukle may allow you to set up an autoban for posters using certain words (the ones like to use as gratuitous insults). Eliminating a lot of their background noise might really raise the bar quite a bit for rational discussion (which I think is what you would want) and would probably up your views with newer viewers not being put off by it and leaving. I know I sometimes stay away for periods of time or just avoid certain kinds of articles because of it. It doesn’t work like the editorials section of the printed paper where the editor deliberately publishes crackpot letters to get a rise out of readers and hopefully more subscriptions.

    Reply
  22. The idea of allowing US to stay as a global hegemon deciding about security issues of planet and maintaining peace makes sense; Chinese are going to be able to proceed with their development plans using their growing position to form some kind of understanding with US while leeching off US security architecture. In this way they will avoid Kindleberger trap-when major provider of world security and stability vanishes creating chaos and desruption; and perhaps the Thucydides trap will be avoided too (when grow of one power pushes other to war with it in order to stay atop). However one may wonder-if China will stay no 2 willingly…. what if something happens and US is no longer no 1? Then automatically China rises to global hegemon position and they will be forced to fill the role of global peace provider. Additionally one can ask question whether China will be willing to stay no 2 willingly for a long period of time. Germany in XIX century had similar idea-to stay in the middle not to aggrevate other powers not be too assertive or agressive keep its navy growth in check and allow its economy to grow… but the moment Bismarck was sacked Kaiser started to do the exact opposite leading to World War I.

    Reply
  23. So the dictators in Beijing are more interested in preserving their fiefdom (and lifestyles) than in risking their necks to bring greater glory to the empire. Maybe they feel that a Cold War style conflict would take up too much of their time (since they’re not ideologues anyway) for a cause that offers them no personal advantages or benefits. So this sounds just about like what Putin & Co were doing before some crooked schemers within the Obama administration / Deep State decided to stage a militant coup in Kiev’s Maidan. One moment Putin & Co were chilling back in Moscow, trying their hand at jazz performances while reaping the oil wealth, and the next moment they’re scrambling to invade Eastern Ukraine to safeguard the Russian population there and preserve a strategic buffer zone. The only beneficiaries of that stunt were of course the crooked Deep State schemers themselves, of course – because suddenly the United States was forced to contend with a ferocious Moscow that had been sucker-punched. But my point is that this “We’re #2! Hurray for #2!” strategy can’t work in the long run. Given China’s unrelenting mercantilism and its expanding regional hegemonism, including its clashes with close US allies like Japan and South Korea, it’s only a matter of time until confrontation comes to a head. At that point, #2 will regretfully wish they’d paid more attention to being #1. Eventually that Highlander movie rationale asserts itself – “There Can Only Be One.

    Reply
  24. So the dictators in Beijing are more interested in preserving their fiefdom (and lifestyles) than in risking their necks to bring greater glory to the empire. They don’t care to have their necks could end up swinging from the lamp-posts, if they were to engage in all-out confrontation for a cause with no clear advantages to them. So this sounds just about like what Putin & Co were doing before some crooked schemers within the Obama administration / Deep State decided to stage a militant coup in Kiev’s Maidan. One moment Putin & Co were chilling back in Moscow, trying their hand at jazz performances while reaping the oil wealth, and the next moment they’re scrambling to invade Eastern Ukraine to safeguard the Russian population there and preserve a strategic buffer zone. The only beneficiaries of that stunt were of course the crooked Deep State schemers themselves, of course – because suddenly the United States was forced to contend with a ferocious Moscow that had been sucker-punched. But my point is that this “We’re #2! Hurray for #2!” strategy can’t work in the long run. Given China’s unrelenting mercantilism and its expanding regional hegemonism, including its clashes with close US allies like Japan and South Korea, it’s only a matter of time until confrontation comes to a head. At that point, #2 will regretfully wish they’d paid more attention to being #1. Eventually that Highlander movie rationale asserts itself – “There Can Only Be One.

    Reply
  25. So the dictators in Beijing are more interested in preserving their fiefdom (and lifestyles) than in risking their necks to bring greater glory to the empire. Maybe they feel that a Cold War style conflict would take up too much of their time (since they’re not ideologues anyway) for a cause that offers them no personal advantages or benefits.So this sounds just about like what Putin & Co were doing before some crooked schemers within the Obama administration / Deep State decided to stage a militant coup in Kiev’s Maidan. One moment Putin & Co were chilling back in Moscow trying their hand at jazz performances while reaping the oil wealth and the next moment they’re scrambling to invade Eastern Ukraine to safeguard the Russian population there and preserve a strategic buffer zone. The only beneficiaries of that stunt were of course the crooked Deep State schemers themselves of course – because suddenly the United States was forced to contend with a ferocious Moscow that had been sucker-punched. But my point is that this We’re #2! Hurray for #2!”” strategy can’t work in the long run. Given China’s unrelenting mercantilism and its expanding regional hegemonism”” including its clashes with close US allies like Japan and South Korea it’s only a matter of time until confrontation comes to a head. At that point”” #2 will regretfully wish they’d paid more attention to being #1. Eventually that Highlander movie rationale asserts itself – “”””There Can Only Be One.”””””””

    Reply
  26. So the dictators in Beijing are more interested in preserving their fiefdom (and lifestyles) than in risking their necks to bring greater glory to the empire. They don’t care to have their necks could end up swinging from the lamp-posts if they were to engage in all-out confrontation for a cause with no clear advantages to them.So this sounds just about like what Putin & Co were doing before some crooked schemers within the Obama administration / Deep State decided to stage a militant coup in Kiev’s Maidan. One moment Putin & Co were chilling back in Moscow trying their hand at jazz performances while reaping the oil wealth and the next moment they’re scrambling to invade Eastern Ukraine to safeguard the Russian population there and preserve a strategic buffer zone.The only beneficiaries of that stunt were of course the crooked Deep State schemers themselves of course – because suddenly the United States was forced to contend with a ferocious Moscow that had been sucker-punched.But my point is that this We’re #2! Hurray for #2!”” strategy can’t work in the long run. Given China’s unrelenting mercantilism and its expanding regional hegemonism”” including its clashes with close US allies like Japan and South Korea it’s only a matter of time until confrontation comes to a head. At that point”” #2 will regretfully wish they’d paid more attention to being #1.Eventually that Highlander movie rationale asserts itself – “”””There Can Only Be One.”””””””

    Reply
  27. USA is the most sought after destination for criminals, like corrupted officials, swindlers, gangsters, etc. in China, China needs USA’s cooperation to reduce crimes and punish those criminals for the harms they did in China. Please stop sheltering criminals and deport them back to China to face justice.

    Reply
  28. USA is the most sought after destination for criminals like corrupted officials swindlers gangsters etc. in China China needs USA’s cooperation to reduce crimes and punish those criminals for the harms they did in China. Please stop sheltering criminals and deport them back to China to face justice.”

    Reply
  29. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/04/asia-pacific/chinas-military-reforms-aimed-offshore-expansion-communist-party-document-says/#.W4SH7LgnaUl From reading the article, it doesn’t seem to me like there is any explicit statement that China is trying to stay in second place. It simply appears to be an outline of goals for the short to medium term – which is consolidating control of the area around China. There is nothing suggesting that overtaking the U.S. economically and militarily aren’t the ultimate goals – frankly I don’t see why those wouldn’t be China’s goals, given its history as a superpower. If you’re going to play the empire game, you’re playing to win. Not to come in second place.

    Reply
  30. As if China and Russia don’t play the exact same games with the U.S. when it comes to using crime, espionage, and political dissent to conveniently mess with each others’ agendas

    Reply
  31. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/04/asia-pacific/chinas-military-reforms-aimed-offshore-expansion-communist-party-document-says/#.W4SE77gnaUk “Military reforms are therefore a significant “turning point” for any given emerging country to “overtake a slower vehicle on a curve,” it said, suggesting that the United States is in its decline.” The implication is that the U.S. is growing, (as are most of the world’s leading economies) – just that the U.S. is probably not going to outgrow China – as China is still in earlier stages of industrialization and has more maturation (and so growth) to go through. The U.S. is not by any means a shrinking or stagnating power like, for example, Russia or Japan.

    Reply
  32. PPP is not to look at countries. When the Chinese sell their crap to us, is it in PPP? No? It is for DOLLARS. They don’t want their own currency or ‘PPP’. Likewise, when they buy oil and natural gas and T-Bills from us, we won’t take their currency or ‘PPP’ either. Only DOLLARS. PPP is for looking at how much it costs a resident in China to buy the equivalent domestic good/service compared to what some other country’s resident buys. That’s it. You do not use it to compare between two countries.

    Reply
  33. Translation: Send back the people who are smart enough to realize that the gig is over in China. More importantly, send back their money!

    Reply
  34. You can not deter w/o a threat to do said deterring. It is not perceived as an adequate threat, then there is ZERO deterrence. Amazing some of the stuff NBF publishes.

    Reply
  35. As if China and Russia don’t play the exact same games with the U.S. when it comes to using crime espionage and political dissent to conveniently mess with each others’ agendas

    Reply
  36. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/04/asia-pacific/chinas-military-reforms-aimed-offshore-expansion-communist-party-document-says/#.W4SE77gnaUkMilitary reforms are therefore a significant “turning point” for any given emerging country to “overtake a slower vehicle on a curve” it said” suggesting that the United States is in its decline.””The implication is that the U.S. is growing”” (as are most of the world’s leading economies) – just that the U.S. is probably not going to outgrow China – as China is still in earlier stages of industrialization and has more maturation (and so growth) to go through. The U.S. is not by any means a shrinking or stagnating power like for example”” Russia or Japan.”””””””

    Reply
  37. PPP is not to look at countries. When the Chinese sell their crap to us is it in PPP? No? It is for DOLLARS. They don’t want their own currency or ‘PPP’. Likewise when they buy oil and natural gas and T-Bills from us we won’t take their currency or ‘PPP’ either. Only DOLLARS.PPP is for looking at how much it costs a resident in China to buy the equivalent domestic good/service compared to what some other country’s resident buys. That’s it. You do not use it to compare between two countries.

    Reply
  38. Translation: Send back the people who are smart enough to realize that the gig is over in China. More importantly send back their money!

    Reply
  39. You can not deter w/o a threat to do said deterring. It is not perceived as an adequate threat then there is ZERO deterrence. Amazing some of the stuff NBF publishes.

    Reply
  40. Agreed, and China’s GDP and PPP measurements are dubious at best. We know the government edits a lot of economic reports over there in an effort to help keep the market stable. Not to say it’s a weak economy by any means – but the real size and its health is something only the government there would know about, and anyways they have no reason to tell anyone what it really looks like at this stage. Market transparency is probably something they will slowly bring forward, if things keep improving.

    Reply
  41. From reading the article, it doesn’t seem to me like there is any explicit statement that China is trying to stay in second place. It simply appears to be an outline of goals for the short to medium term – which is consolidating control of the area around China. There is nothing suggesting that overtaking the U.S. economically and militarily aren’t the ultimate goals – frankly I don’t see why those wouldn’t be China’s goals, given its history as a superpower. If you’re going to play the empire game, you’re playing to win. Not to come in second place. Original article about the supposed leaked report: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/04/asia-pacific/chinas-military-reforms-aimed-offshore-expansion-communist-party-document-says/#.W4SH7LgnaUl

    Reply
  42. Agreed and China’s GDP and PPP measurements are dubious at best. We know the government edits a lot of economic reports over there in an effort to help keep the market stable. Not to say it’s a weak economy by any means – but the real size and its health is something only the government there would know about and anyways they have no reason to tell anyone what it really looks like at this stage. Market transparency is probably something they will slowly bring forward if things keep improving.

    Reply
  43. From reading the article it doesn’t seem to me like there is any explicit statement that China is trying to stay in second place. It simply appears to be an outline of goals for the short to medium term – which is consolidating control of the area around China. There is nothing suggesting that overtaking the U.S. economically and militarily aren’t the ultimate goals – frankly I don’t see why those wouldn’t be China’s goals given its history as a superpower. If you’re going to play the empire game you’re playing to win. Not to come in second place. Original article about the supposed leaked report: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/04/asia-pacific/chinas-military-reforms-aimed-offshore-expansion-communist-party-document-says/#.W4SH7LgnaUl

    Reply
  44. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/04/asia-pacific/chinas-military-reforms-aimed-offshore-expansion-communist-party-document-says/#.W4SH7LgnaUlFrom reading the article it doesn’t seem to me like there is any explicit statement that China is trying to stay in second place. It simply appears to be an outline of goals for the short to medium term – which is consolidating control of the area around China. There is nothing suggesting that overtaking the U.S. economically and militarily aren’t the ultimate goals – frankly I don’t see why those wouldn’t be China’s goals given its history as a superpower. If you’re going to play the empire game you’re playing to win. Not to come in second place.

    Reply
  45. Warren just explained how PPP doesn’t fit for explaining the current situation. PPP is only useful when you’re comparing relative buying power within countries and not when it comes to the global market exchange. The reason the World Bank uses PPP a lot is because its mostly concerned about quality of life for the average person living in a country, it’s more focused on measuring how well people are living (it is a humanitarian organization) which is especially where PPP comes in handy. If you’re talking about sheer financial might on the world stage, GDP is the king measurement to use.

    Reply
  46. Is your go-to response to sound like a big man constantly calling people kids? You don’t know about economics. The way you’re writing these statements sounds like you’re not even 18. Warren just explained to you how PPP doesn’t fit for explaining the current situation – but I guess you’re not really enough of an adult to just admit when you’ve talked yourself into a corner. PPP is only useful when you’re comparing relative buying power within countries and not when it comes to the global market exchange. There’s a reason why economists use both measurements. And if you were reading, China isn’t very transparent about its actual market size.

    Reply
  47. Is your go-to response to sound like a big man constantly calling people kids? You don’t know about economics. Warren just explained to you how PPP doesn’t fit for explaining the current situation – but I guess you’re not really enough of an adult to just admit when you’ve talked yourself into a corner

    Reply
  48. Growing less then rivals, WTA. China is growing 7%, India 7% , Iran about 4% and the US less than 2% average in the last 10 yeaar

    Reply
  49. The US has been growing less than the world average for 20 years in a row now. It is expanding less then China and India who are growing way fester

    Reply
  50. PPP definition is the definition used by the World Bank and the IMF People who know about economics WAY more than you do kid

    Reply
  51. Warren just explained how PPP doesn’t fit for explaining the current situation. PPP is only useful when you’re comparing relative buying power within countries and not when it comes to the global market exchange. The reason the World Bank uses PPP a lot is because its mostly concerned about quality of life for the average person living in a country it’s more focused on measuring how well people are living (it is a humanitarian organization) which is especially where PPP comes in handy. If you’re talking about sheer financial might on the world stage GDP is the king measurement to use.

    Reply
  52. Is your go-to response to sound like a big man constantly calling people kids? You don’t know about economics. The way you’re writing these statements sounds like you’re not even 18. Warren just explained to you how PPP doesn’t fit for explaining the current situation – but I guess you’re not really enough of an adult to just admit when you’ve talked yourself into a corner. PPP is only useful when you’re comparing relative buying power within countries and not when it comes to the global market exchange. There’s a reason why economists use both measurements. And if you were reading China isn’t very transparent about its actual market size.

    Reply
  53. Is your go-to response to sound like a big man constantly calling people kids? You don’t know about economics. Warren just explained to you how PPP doesn’t fit for explaining the current situation – but I guess you’re not really enough of an adult to just admit when you’ve talked yourself into a corner

    Reply
  54. Growing less then rivals WTA. China is growing 7{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} India 7{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} Iran about 4{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} and the US less than 2{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} average in the last 10 yeaar

    Reply
  55. Growing less than rivals: China growing 10{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} India 7{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} Iran 4{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} while the US average at less than 2{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}

    Reply
  56. The US has been growing less than the world average for 20 years in a row now. It is expanding less then China and India who are growing way fester

    Reply
  57. Wrong analysis Point is that China does not *need* a hot war to win global hegemony, they are *already* winning by simply expanding their economy while the US bleeds money with spending $1T per year in the military and growing a paltry 2% less per year China is winning by simply taking over as top manufacturer in all key areas

    Reply
  58. Your friend Warren is a troll who publicly supported countries killing each other and genocide Not the kind of person you may want to quote, IMHO As for the PPP, it is widely used by all top economists and institutions. The fact that you do not understand how it works it is your problem, not mine

    Reply
  59. Nazi Germany was strong economically too, does not mean they were good Well, at least they attacked countries of their own size Differently from coward americans who attack Vietnam, Grenada.. Ditto

    Reply
  60. Wrong analysis Point is that China does not *need* a hot war to win global hegemony they are *already* winning by simply expanding their economy while the US bleeds money with spending $1T per year in the military and growing a paltry 2{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} less per year China is winning by simply taking over as top manufacturer in all key areas

    Reply
  61. Your friend Warren is a troll who publicly supported countries killing each other and genocide Not the kind of person you may want to quote IMHO As for the PPP it is widely used by all top economists and institutions. The fact that you do not understand how it works it is your problem not mine

    Reply
  62. Nazi Germany was strong economically too does not mean they were good Well at least they attacked countries of their own size Differently from coward americans who attack Vietnam Grenada.. Ditto

    Reply
  63. This is nothing but an attempt to let one’s guard down. For several thousand years now, China has considered itself the center (navel!) of the world. It would not hesitate to use military strength to conquer smaller countries. Today, Chinese tourists went on world tour prove that mentality through their disregard to local laws and established behavior.

    Reply
  64. This is nothing but an attempt to let one’s guard down. For several thousand years now China has considered itself the center (navel!) of the world. It would not hesitate to use military strength to conquer smaller countries. Today Chinese tourists went on world tour prove that mentality through their disregard to local laws and established behavior.

    Reply
  65. I think it is possible to come to a resolution that allows China to feel secure but does not, at the same time, constitute a “blank check” for China to act as the regional hegemon and force its neighbors to accept its will. Of course I don’t think that such a resolution is inevitable, but I do think we can strive to achieve it. One step that I can recommend is for India, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and perhaps others like Australia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. to work to get past historic gripes with one another and speak with one voice concerning Chinese actions in their neighborhood. With or without American “buy-in” this kind of unity will help limit what China can dictate beyond its shores.

    Reply
  66. This makes a great deal of sense, from the Chinese perspective they only need enough military to constitute a plausible deterrent to US intervention and not enough to provoke a pointless and exceedingly expensive arms race (in addition to potentially causing the US and China to become more hostile to one another when that isn’t really necessary since we don’t really have too many points of collision of national interests that would make for natural adversaries). Modern warfare is so destructive and expensive that the decision to go to war is rarely a rational one, unless deprived of the option. So, any resolution that prevents the US and China from being in a permanent state of loggerheads sounds attractive to me.

    Reply
  67. I think it is possible to come to a resolution that allows China to feel secure but does not at the same time constitute a blank check”” for China to act as the regional hegemon and force its neighbors to accept its will. Of course I don’t think that such a resolution is inevitable”” but I do think we can strive to achieve it. One step that I can recommend is for India Japan South Korea Vietnam Taiwan and perhaps others like Australia the Philippines Malaysia Indonesia”” etc. to work to get past historic gripes with one another and speak with one voice concerning Chinese actions in their neighborhood. With or without American “”””buy-in”””” this kind of unity will help limit what China can dictate beyond its shores.”””

    Reply
  68. This makes a great deal of sense from the Chinese perspective they only need enough military to constitute a plausible deterrent to US intervention and not enough to provoke a pointless and exceedingly expensive arms race (in addition to potentially causing the US and China to become more hostile to one another when that isn’t really necessary since we don’t really have too many points of collision of national interests that would make for natural adversaries). Modern warfare is so destructive and expensive that the decision to go to war is rarely a rational one unless deprived of the option. So any resolution that prevents the US and China from being in a permanent state of loggerheads sounds attractive to me.

    Reply
  69. PPP exchange rates can be useful for making comparisons between countries because they stay fairly constant from day to day or week to week and only change modestly, if at all, from year to year. -> From the Wiki page of PPP (let aloe that China will pass soon the US in absolute terms as well, ..)

    Reply
  70. Warren is the no. 1 troll of NBF, he has been around here for ages and changed several names Several people have cricitized him, others are ignoring him Not the best buddy to buddy up with IMHO bit.ly/2MeWYZT As for the PPP thing, maybe you did not read what I wrote, I will explain again If a fighter plane is made in China , and all fighter planes used by China are made in China, what is interesting to know is the cost of that fighter plane in PPP , not in absolute terms So military might is about the cost of things as produced in that country , you do not get Chinese military paid in US dollars, you get them paid in Chinese Yuan WTA will never get this, but you should

    Reply
  71. PPP exchange rates can be useful for making comparisons between countries because they stay fairly constant from day to day or week to week and only change modestly if at all from year to year. -> From the Wiki page of PPP (let aloe that China will pass soon the US in absolute terms as well ..)

    Reply
  72. Warren is the no. 1 troll of NBF he has been around here for ages and changed several namesSeveral people have cricitized him others are ignoring him Not the best buddy to buddy up with IMHO bit.ly/2MeWYZTAs for the PPP thing maybe you did not read what I wrote I will explain again If a fighter plane is made in China and all fighter planes used by China are made in China what is interesting to know is the cost of that fighter plane in PPP not in absolute terms So military might is about the cost of things as produced in that country you do not get Chinese military paid in US dollars you get them paid in Chinese Yuan WTA will never get this but you should

    Reply
  73. When I am talking about raw gdp, I am referring to the comment on who has the strongest economy. Currently the U.S. has the strongest and is growing. Growth isnt great but its normal considering all the mature economies arent doing so great with growth right now. Its natural market development that the us share of the world economy is on the decline. The dollar is the stronger and less volatile currency as well. China has the advantage in ppp and military procurement for sure due to a very competitive labor market with less regulation. They also dont have political procurement shenanigans like dead end stealth destroyer classes with tiny production runs. China is going to beat U.S. gdp in a few years I’m sure. When that happens precisely is difficult to tell because the Chinese government obfuscates a lot of data. And steps are being taken to strengthen the yuan. It was almost always the top economy before colonialism and is recovering, finally. As for who is a troll or not, Im not really going to delve into peoples overall commenting but weighing in on this article discussion. Warren is not my friend, just made a point I mostly agreed with in that context. I do not think I disagree with your perspective as much as there seems to be arguing about different facets of the economies

    Reply
  74. When I am talking about raw gdp I am referring to the comment on who has the strongest economy. Currently the U.S. has the strongest and is growing. Growth isnt great but its normal considering all the mature economies arent doing so great with growth right now. Its natural market development that the us share of the world economy is on the decline. The dollar is the stronger and less volatile currency as well. China has the advantage in ppp and military procurement for sure due to a very competitive labor market with less regulation. They also dont have political procurement shenanigans like dead end stealth destroyer classes with tiny production runs. China is going to beat U.S. gdp in a few years I’m sure. When that happens precisely is difficult to tell because the Chinese government obfuscates a lot of data. And steps are being taken to strengthen the yuan. It was almost always the top economy before colonialism and is recovering finally. As for who is a troll or not Im not really going to delve into peoples overall commenting but weighing in on this article discussion. Warren is not my friend just made a point I mostly agreed with in that context. I do not think I disagree with your perspective as much as there seems to be arguing about different facets of the economies

    Reply
  75. Everything you just wrote pretty much nails it. Except one thing: I don’t dislike/hate Matteo (that’s his real identity that he stupidly posted YEARS ago here on NBF)….because he serves a purpose. https://bit.ly/2nNvYlk His Stalker Wall of me online is pretty creepy, tho.

    Reply
  76. Why does the US and China need to be in an adversarial relationship? Wouldn’t it be more advantageous for humankind in general if the two great powers work in tandem?

    Reply
  77. No wonder Warren dislikes you so much. You are like a know it all little brother … who, in reality, doesn’t know jack sh1t.

    Reply
  78. Why does the US and China need to be in an adversarial relationship? Wouldn’t it be more advantageous for humankind in general if the two great powers work in tandem?

    Reply
  79. No wonder Warren dislikes you so much. You are like a know it all little brother … who in reality doesn’t know jack sh1t.

    Reply
  80. Warren the Troll recently said he would enjoy seeing people killing each other in a nuclear war . And you even support this psycho, what a shame..

    Reply
  81. Warren the Troll recently said he would enjoy seeing people killing each other in a nuclear war . And you even support this psycho what a shame..

    Reply
  82. Everything you just wrote pretty much nails it. Except one thing: I don’t dislike/hate Matteo (that’s his real identity that he stupidly posted YEARS ago here on NBF)….because he serves a purpose.https://bit.ly/2nNvYlkHis Stalker Wall of me online is pretty creepy tho.

    Reply
  83. Well, there are enough deterrence, as the article detailed. All the way to 2030, China still does not have the number of advanced weapons as the US. Then, there is also the nuclear option. It’s time that the US and allies stop provoking China, like the useless Freedom of Navigation episodes. They won’t slow or stop China’s arm buildup, but rather give her more urgency to do so. Will the US like it if China fly bombers or sail their warships 12 miles from its coasts or circling Guam or Hawaii? The act might occur in international water, but is provocative at least. These taunts are acts of the immatures. What the world need is sound policies that help stability and cooperation.

    Reply
  84. Well there are enough deterrence as the article detailed. All the way to 2030 China still does not have the number of advanced weapons as the US. Then there is also the nuclear option. It’s time that the US and allies stop provoking China like the useless Freedom of Navigation episodes. They won’t slow or stop China’s arm buildup but rather give her more urgency to do so. Will the US like it if China fly bombers or sail their warships 12 miles from its coasts or circling Guam or Hawaii? The act might occur in international water but is provocative at least. These taunts are acts of the immatures. What the world need is sound policies that help stability and cooperation.

    Reply
  85. Well, there are enough deterrence, as the article detailed. All the way to 2030, China still does not have the number of advanced weapons as the US. Then, there is also the nuclear option. It’s time that the US and allies stop provoking China, like the useless Freedom of Navigation episodes. They won’t slow or stop China’s arm buildup, but rather give her more urgency to do so. Will the US like it if China fly bombers or sail their warships 12 miles from its coasts or circling Guam or Hawaii? The act might occur in international water, but is provocative at least. These taunts are acts of the immatures. What the world need is sound policies that help stability and cooperation.

    Reply
  86. If China has virtually no enemies why would they need lots of ICBMs? Are they going to send candy in those ballistic missiles?

    Reply
  87. If China has virtually no enemies why would they need lots of ICBMs? Are they going to send candy in those ballistic missiles?

    Reply
  88. When I am talking about raw gdp, I am referring to the comment on who has the strongest economy. Currently the U.S. has the strongest and is growing. Growth isnt great but its normal considering all the mature economies arent doing so great with growth right now. Its natural market development that the us share of the world economy is on the decline. The dollar is the stronger and less volatile currency as well. China has the advantage in ppp and military procurement for sure due to a very competitive labor market with less regulation. They also dont have political procurement shenanigans like dead end stealth destroyer classes with tiny production runs. China is going to beat U.S. gdp in a few years I’m sure. When that happens precisely is difficult to tell because the Chinese government obfuscates a lot of data. And steps are being taken to strengthen the yuan. It was almost always the top economy before colonialism and is recovering, finally. As for who is a troll or not, Im not really going to delve into peoples overall commenting but weighing in on this article discussion. Warren is not my friend, just made a point I mostly agreed with in that context. I do not think I disagree with your perspective as much as there seems to be arguing about different facets of the economies

    Reply
  89. PPP exchange rates can be useful for making comparisons between countries because they stay fairly constant from day to day or week to week and only change modestly, if at all, from year to year.
    -> From the Wiki page of PPP
    (let aloe that China will pass soon the US in absolute terms as well, ..)

    Reply
  90. Warren is the no. 1 troll of NBF, he has been around here for ages and changed several names
    Several people have cricitized him, others are ignoring him
    Not the best buddy to buddy up with IMHO
    bit.ly/2MeWYZT
    As for the PPP thing, maybe you did not read what I wrote, I will explain again
    If a fighter plane is made in China , and all fighter planes used by China are made in China, what is interesting to know is the cost of that fighter plane in PPP , not in absolute terms
    So military might is about the cost of things as produced in that country , you do not get Chinese military paid in US dollars, you get them paid in Chinese Yuan
    WTA will never get this, but you should

    Reply
  91. I think it is possible to come to a resolution that allows China to feel secure but does not, at the same time, constitute a “blank check” for China to act as the regional hegemon and force its neighbors to accept its will. Of course I don’t think that such a resolution is inevitable, but I do think we can strive to achieve it.

    One step that I can recommend is for India, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, and perhaps others like Australia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. to work to get past historic gripes with one another and speak with one voice concerning Chinese actions in their neighborhood. With or without American “buy-in” this kind of unity will help limit what China can dictate beyond its shores.

    Reply
  92. This makes a great deal of sense, from the Chinese perspective they only need enough military to constitute a plausible deterrent to US intervention and not enough to provoke a pointless and exceedingly expensive arms race (in addition to potentially causing the US and China to become more hostile to one another when that isn’t really necessary since we don’t really have too many points of collision of national interests that would make for natural adversaries). Modern warfare is so destructive and expensive that the decision to go to war is rarely a rational one, unless deprived of the option. So, any resolution that prevents the US and China from being in a permanent state of loggerheads sounds attractive to me.

    Reply
  93. This is nothing but an attempt to let one’s guard down. For several thousand years now, China has considered itself the center (navel!) of the world. It would not hesitate to use military strength to conquer smaller countries. Today, Chinese tourists went on world tour prove that mentality through their disregard to local laws and established behavior.

    Reply
  94. Wrong analysis
    Point is that China does not *need* a hot war to win global hegemony, they are *already* winning by simply expanding their economy while the US bleeds money with spending $1T per year in the military and growing a paltry 2% less per year
    China is winning by simply taking over as top manufacturer in all key areas

    Reply
  95. Your friend Warren is a troll who publicly supported countries killing each other and genocide
    Not the kind of person you may want to quote, IMHO
    As for the PPP, it is widely used by all top economists and institutions.
    The fact that you do not understand how it works it is your problem, not mine

    Reply
  96. Nazi Germany was strong economically too, does not mean they were good
    Well, at least they attacked countries of their own size
    Differently from coward americans who attack Vietnam, Grenada..
    Ditto

    Reply
  97. Warren just explained how PPP doesn’t fit for explaining the current situation. PPP is only useful when you’re comparing relative buying power within countries and not when it comes to the global market exchange. The reason the World Bank uses PPP a lot is because its mostly concerned about quality of life for the average person living in a country, it’s more focused on measuring how well people are living (it is a humanitarian organization) which is especially where PPP comes in handy. If you’re talking about sheer financial might on the world stage, GDP is the king measurement to use.

    Reply
  98. Is your go-to response to sound like a big man constantly calling people kids? You don’t know about economics. The way you’re writing these statements sounds like you’re not even 18. Warren just explained to you how PPP doesn’t fit for explaining the current situation – but I guess you’re not really enough of an adult to just admit when you’ve talked yourself into a corner. PPP is only useful when you’re comparing relative buying power within countries and not when it comes to the global market exchange. There’s a reason why economists use both measurements. And if you were reading, China isn’t very transparent about its actual market size.

    Reply
  99. Is your go-to response to sound like a big man constantly calling people kids? You don’t know about economics. Warren just explained to you how PPP doesn’t fit for explaining the current situation – but I guess you’re not really enough of an adult to just admit when you’ve talked yourself into a corner

    Reply
  100. Agreed, and China’s GDP and PPP measurements are dubious at best. We know the government edits a lot of economic reports over there in an effort to help keep the market stable. Not to say it’s a weak economy by any means – but the real size and its health is something only the government there would know about, and anyways they have no reason to tell anyone what it really looks like at this stage. Market transparency is probably something they will slowly bring forward, if things keep improving.

    Reply
  101. From reading the article, it doesn’t seem to me like there is any explicit statement that China is trying to stay in second place. It simply appears to be an outline of goals for the short to medium term – which is consolidating control of the area around China. There is nothing suggesting that overtaking the U.S. economically and militarily aren’t the ultimate goals – frankly I don’t see why those wouldn’t be China’s goals, given its history as a superpower. If you’re going to play the empire game, you’re playing to win. Not to come in second place. Original article about the supposed leaked report: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/04/asia-pacific/chinas-military-reforms-aimed-offshore-expansion-communist-party-document-says/#.W4SH7LgnaUl

    Reply
  102. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/04/asia-pacific/chinas-military-reforms-aimed-offshore-expansion-communist-party-document-says/#.W4SH7LgnaUl

    From reading the article, it doesn’t seem to me like there is any explicit statement that China is trying to stay in second place. It simply appears to be an outline of goals for the short to medium term – which is consolidating control of the area around China. There is nothing suggesting that overtaking the U.S. economically and militarily aren’t the ultimate goals – frankly I don’t see why those wouldn’t be China’s goals, given its history as a superpower. If you’re going to play the empire game, you’re playing to win. Not to come in second place.

    Reply
  103. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/04/asia-pacific/chinas-military-reforms-aimed-offshore-expansion-communist-party-document-says/#.W4SE77gnaUk

    “Military reforms are therefore a significant “turning point” for any given emerging country to “overtake a slower vehicle on a curve,” it said, suggesting that the United States is in its decline.”

    The implication is that the U.S. is growing, (as are most of the world’s leading economies) – just that the U.S. is probably not going to outgrow China – as China is still in earlier stages of industrialization and has more maturation (and so growth) to go through. The U.S. is not by any means a shrinking or stagnating power like, for example, Russia or Japan.

    Reply
  104. PPP is not to look at countries. When the Chinese sell their crap to us, is it in PPP? No? It is for DOLLARS. They don’t want their own currency or ‘PPP’.

    Likewise, when they buy oil and natural gas and T-Bills from us, we won’t take their currency or ‘PPP’ either. Only DOLLARS.

    PPP is for looking at how much it costs a resident in China to buy the equivalent domestic good/service compared to what some other country’s resident buys. That’s it. You do not use it to compare between two countries.

    Reply
  105. USA is the most sought after destination for criminals, like corrupted officials, swindlers, gangsters, etc. in China, China needs USA’s cooperation to reduce crimes and punish those criminals for the harms they did in China. Please stop sheltering criminals and deport them back to China to face justice.

    Reply
  106. So the dictators in Beijing are more interested in preserving their fiefdom (and lifestyles) than in risking their necks to bring greater glory to the empire. Maybe they feel that a Cold War style conflict would take up too much of their time (since they’re not ideologues anyway) for a cause that offers them no personal advantages or benefits.

    So this sounds just about like what Putin & Co were doing before some crooked schemers within the Obama administration / Deep State decided to stage a militant coup in Kiev’s Maidan. One moment Putin & Co were chilling back in Moscow, trying their hand at jazz performances while reaping the oil wealth, and the next moment they’re scrambling to invade Eastern Ukraine to safeguard the Russian population there and preserve a strategic buffer zone.

    The only beneficiaries of that stunt were of course the crooked Deep State schemers themselves, of course – because suddenly the United States was forced to contend with a ferocious Moscow that had been sucker-punched.

    But my point is that this “We’re #2! Hurray for #2!” strategy can’t work in the long run. Given China’s unrelenting mercantilism and its expanding regional hegemonism, including its clashes with close US allies like Japan and South Korea, it’s only a matter of time until confrontation comes to a head. At that point, #2 will regretfully wish they’d paid more attention to being #1.

    Eventually that Highlander movie rationale asserts itself – “There Can Only Be One.”

    Reply
  107. So the dictators in Beijing are more interested in preserving their fiefdom (and lifestyles) than in risking their necks to bring greater glory to the empire. They don’t care to have their necks could end up swinging from the lamp-posts, if they were to engage in all-out confrontation for a cause with no clear advantages to them.

    So this sounds just about like what Putin & Co were doing before some crooked schemers within the Obama administration / Deep State decided to stage a militant coup in Kiev’s Maidan. One moment Putin & Co were chilling back in Moscow, trying their hand at jazz performances while reaping the oil wealth, and the next moment they’re scrambling to invade Eastern Ukraine to safeguard the Russian population there and preserve a strategic buffer zone.

    The only beneficiaries of that stunt were of course the crooked Deep State schemers themselves, of course – because suddenly the United States was forced to contend with a ferocious Moscow that had been sucker-punched.

    But my point is that this “We’re #2! Hurray for #2!” strategy can’t work in the long run. Given China’s unrelenting mercantilism and its expanding regional hegemonism, including its clashes with close US allies like Japan and South Korea, it’s only a matter of time until confrontation comes to a head. At that point, #2 will regretfully wish they’d paid more attention to being #1.

    Eventually that Highlander movie rationale asserts itself – “There Can Only Be One.”

    Reply
  108. I’m really about done looking at comments on posts like this. Our resident trolls, whether it’s for fifty cents or for fun, have to chime in every other comment, bring nothing to the discussion but repeated iterations of The Big Lie (look it up), and insults. It was amusing for a (very) short while, but now it is spam.

    Brian: We all know who they are, and Vuukle may allow you to set up an autoban for posters using certain words (the ones like to use as gratuitous insults). Eliminating a lot of their background noise might really raise the bar quite a bit for rational discussion (which I think is what you would want) and would probably up your views with newer viewers not being put off by it and leaving. I know I sometimes stay away for periods of time, or just avoid certain kinds of articles, because of it. It doesn’t work like the editorials section of the printed paper, where the editor deliberately publishes crackpot letters to get a rise out of readers and, hopefully, more subscriptions.

    Reply
  109. The idea of allowing US to stay as a global hegemon, deciding about security issues of planet and maintaining peace makes sense; Chinese are going to be able to proceed with their development plans, using their growing position to form some kind of understanding with US, while leeching off US security architecture. In this way they will avoid Kindleberger trap-when major provider of world security and stability vanishes, creating chaos and desruption; and perhaps the Thucydides trap will be avoided too (when grow of one power pushes other to war with it in order to stay atop). However one may wonder-if China will stay no 2 willingly…. what if something happens and US is no longer no 1? Then automatically China rises to global hegemon position, and they will be forced to fill the role of global peace provider. Additionally one can ask question whether China will be willing to stay no 2 willingly for a long period of time. Germany in XIX century had similar idea-to stay in the middle, not to aggrevate other powers, not be too assertive or agressive, keep its navy growth in check and allow its economy to grow… but the moment Bismarck was sacked, Kaiser started to do the exact opposite , leading to World War I.

    Reply
  110. Look at the listof countries GDP PPP and learn kid
    It is related to the fact that the US did not want Crimea to be part of Russian and failed, did not want Assad in power and failed, did not want Iran to take over Iraq and failed, did not want Vietnam to become Comminist and failed
    Learn, kid, learn

    Reply
  111. Totally wrong reply.
    China is the second place global economy. -> Noi it is the first since 2014 -> inconsistent with global statistics.

    The US has lost Crimea to Russia, Iraq to Iran, Vietnam and Assad still in power -> Haha, what is this babble and how does it relate?

    I usually just laugh at this crap but was a little bored so…poke…

    Reply
  112. This is very wong, Joe. There is no responsibility for the USA to be ranked first in measures China is interested in, really. Having spent time in China, uneducated rednecks are really something both countries share.

    Reply
  113. They are stealing some of it but China is still 20 years or more behind. China produces no civilian aircraft, military aircraft or any type of jet engine that is even on par with what the US was building 30 years ago. F-22 is 20 now, China still does not have a fighter that is even close to matching it. The B-52 is over 60 and China is still lagging it. It will take China 20 year just to get half of the current US carrier force, if they devote a huge amount of resources to it. then there is rocketry, where SpaceX has a 10-15 year lead on everyone. If America completely stagnates for a decade or two China might catch up, at the moment its probably more like gaining a year on the US every 5-10 years. At that rate it will be 2100 by the time they are on the same terms. China currently gets 15% of its energy abroad, that is growing rapidly. The US only gets 7-10% of its energy imported. China is a net food importer and about 10% of their food is imported. US is a major food exporter producing nearly double what it consumes. Food security is an issue for China as is the huge aging population that is beginning to emerge.

    Reply
  114. It is USA’s own responsibility to maintain its first place in the world, please do not blame others if you, the American, fails your own duty, just like don’t blame others stealing your technology if you, the American, fails to keep up the invention competition. Only uneducated reckneck and sour grape behaves so disgracefully.

    Reply
  115. The most lethal weapon the American has is big mouth loose cannon propaganda that no one in the world can beat. Naz1’s propaganda is child play comparing to what the American is capable of and doing.

    Reply
  116. Totally wrong article
    China is the second place global economy. -> Noi it is the first since 2014

    China knows that it does not want to truly challenge the US globally but being a solid second place military is needed to protect global interests. -> No because there is nothing to challenge about the US globally .
    The US has lost Crimea to Russia, Iraq to Iran, Vietnam and Assad still in power

    I think China will want to maintain this strong second place balance for at least the next 20 years. It would be costly and not successful for China to attempt any threatening build up before 2040. Plus exceeding the US in conventional forces still leaves a nuclear conflict.
    -> China does not need that as you do not becomenumber one with tanks any more

    China is expanding its marine corp to become the second largest in the world.
    -> Irrelevant to the point

    Reply
  117. ” China wants a global second place military scaled to deter but not threaten the US ” <-- Other then defeating them or humiliating them into quitting their attempted seizure of international waters, why do we care?

    Reply

Leave a Comment