China's Defense Spending Thread

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
1000031451.jpgJust a correction on the pace of boming against Germany in ww2. Everything up until summer of 1944 was fairly small scale stuff and not systematic. Anda lot of it wasnt against industry. But once a dedicated anti industry campaign started in 1944, Germany indeed felt it and soon their output started crumbling. Anyway that is off topic.

On topic, public defense budget figure is less important. More important is output. Which indeed matches or exceeds us one.
Carriers? More.
Destoryers? More.
Nuke subs? More.
Sam systems? More.
Attack missiles? More.
Jet fighters? More.
Satellites per year? ok, that one is fewer. Both when govt only and commercial sector ones are included.
 

PandaAI

Junior Member
Registered Member
View attachment 170810Just a correction on the pace of boming against Germany in ww2. Everything up until summer of 1944 was fairly small scale stuff and not systematic. Anda lot of it wasnt against industry. But once a dedicated anti industry campaign started in 1944, Germany indeed felt it and soon their output started crumbling. Anyway that is off topic.

On topic, public defense budget figure is less important. More important is output. Which indeed matches or exceeds us one.
Carriers? More.
Destoryers? More.
Nuke subs? More.
Sam systems? More.
Attack missiles? More.
Jet fighters? More.
Satellites per year? ok, that one is fewer. Both when govt only and commercial sector ones are included.

Yes what you produce is most important. I hope all projects are well funded and funding is a non-issue. If that is the case then it’s fine. You can have a high budget but get very little output out of it. China’s MIC is very efficient so that increase is probably enough.
 

NorthKimBestKim

New Member
Registered Member
Why do people think US and it's allies could make any serious dent into China's manufacturing capabilities?

Have you guys not seen the current war between US/Israel and Iran lol.
That is a horrible comparison.

PRC military planners should never accept - I am sure I am not the only one thinking this way - for U.S. and its vassall-regimes to attack anything on the PRC mainland.

That means all the attacks Iran has to endure, is not something PRC should accept for itself since PRC is far more powerful. You're already on the losing side if enemy aircraft can enter deeply into your space and bomb anything around that area.

I am simply applying the same non-tolerable scenario if you applied that to the U.S., and if someone tried to enter their continental U.S. airspace, for instance West Coast of the U.S, then the U.S. would already be considering a nuclear strike in return for that "air space violation".

Now, I am talking about the scenario where the war has truly started.

That means, PRC should NEVER accept the level or damage Iran is taking, nor should PRC accept any kind of "bombing campaign" on its mainland.

In order to deter the enemy (or several enemies), the only way is to continue rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal along with massive build-up of conventional forces as well.

Let me also compare the situation with Russia. Whilst U.S. and NATO does not dare to go directly into Left-Overs Ukraine that still controls about 79% of the territory after 4 years of fighting, they're still supporting Left-Overs Ukraine in any other possible sense. And why is that? That is because, whilst U.S. does fear the Russian nuclear arsenal, they do NOT respect Russian conventional fire power. They always like to say the following: "If Russia didn't had so many nukes, we would have broken down Russia in several pieces". But let me remind you, U.S. and European vassall-regimes are still working on that plan (breaking up Russia and now Iran), but in other ways, through proxy and manipulation.

Russia has also been forced to take too many hits on its mainland, precisely because Russia and Belarus does NOT have overwhelming conventional fire power against the U.S. and European regimes, so that is the reason the situation now is totally locked after more than 4 years.

Again, PRC should never accept this kind of scenario (Russia vs fully NATO-supported Left-Overs Ukraine) for itself. Neither should PRC accept Iran scenario for itself.

In a case of war, PRC should be advancing forward, and smashing the fvck out of everything. And whilst advancing and smashing its enemies within 1st Island Chain and 2nd Island Chain, it should not take PRC several months or years to do so. In order to secure the scenario where PRC can brutally smash every enemy within this area now and over the next few years, then the 7% increase in defence spending is not nearly enough.

PRC should give out a clear warning: In case of war, if one Imperial missile reach its mainland, the limited use of tactical nukes will be used against the enemy, which is simply what the U.S. would have done if anyone was "flying around" its coast and tried to bomb the continental U.S.

Remember, the PRC is facing a crazy and radical Trump regime that is talking about increasing the defence spending by 500 billion USD. That is sick as it gets.

Imagine this scenario in the future. Imperial Terror Empire has won. It has broken Russia, PRC, DPRK, and any other Muslim nation, including nuclear-armed Pakistan, Iran divided in several pieces, Algeria smashed, Turkey is in that scenario half Kurdish, etc. and everyone else including PRC has also bowed down to the Empire.

How do you explain that to the next generation of people, oh here is the explanation, it goes like this:

"Once up on a time (20 years ago) there was this country called PRC that had 43,5 Trillion GDP PPP economy in 2026 - and it achieved 50 Trillion GDP PPP by the year 2030, but they were naive, decided to spend 1,4% of GDP on defense whilst their enemies took out every other country that was friendly to PRC and eventually they came for PRC itself. THE END".
 
PRC military planners should never accept - I am sure I am not the only one thinking this way - for U.S. and its vassall-regimes to attack anything on the PRC mainland.

That means all the attacks Iran has to endure, is not something PRC should accept for itself since PRC is far more powerful. You're already on the losing side if enemy aircraft can enter deeply into your space and bomb anything around that area.
The adversary does not need to fly manned aircraft in Chinese airspace to be able to attack the Chinese mainland. Stand off munitions can be used from hundreds or thousands of miles away. Are you proposing to nuke Taiwan/Japan if missiles (or even drones, in Taiwan's case) strike targets on mainland China?
 
Last edited:

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
That is a horrible comparison.

PRC military planners should never accept - I am sure I am not the only one thinking this way - for U.S. and its vassall-regimes to attack anything on the PRC mainland.

That means all the attacks Iran has to endure, is not something PRC should accept for itself since PRC is far more powerful. You're already on the losing side if enemy aircraft can enter deeply into your space and bomb anything around that area.

I am simply applying the same non-tolerable scenario if you applied that to the U.S., and if someone tried to enter their continental U.S. airspace, for instance West Coast of the U.S, then the U.S. would already be considering a nuclear strike in return for that "air space violation".

Now, I am talking about the scenario where the war has truly started.

That means, PRC should NEVER accept the level or damage Iran is taking, nor should PRC accept any kind of "bombing campaign" on its mainland.

In order to deter the enemy (or several enemies), the only way is to continue rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal along with massive build-up of conventional forces as well.

Let me also compare the situation with Russia. Whilst U.S. and NATO does not dare to go directly into Left-Overs Ukraine that still controls about 79% of the territory after 4 years of fighting, they're still supporting Left-Overs Ukraine in any other possible sense. And why is that? That is because, whilst U.S. does fear the Russian nuclear arsenal, they do NOT respect Russian conventional fire power. They always like to say the following: "If Russia didn't had so many nukes, we would have broken down Russia in several pieces". But let me remind you, U.S. and European vassall-regimes are still working on that plan (breaking up Russia and now Iran), but in other ways, through proxy and manipulation.

Russia has also been forced to take too many hits on its mainland, precisely because Russia and Belarus does NOT have overwhelming conventional fire power against the U.S. and European regimes, so that is the reason the situation now is totally locked after more than 4 years.

Again, PRC should never accept this kind of scenario (Russia vs fully NATO-supported Left-Overs Ukraine) for itself. Neither should PRC accept Iran scenario for itself.

In a case of war, PRC should be advancing forward, and smashing the fvck out of everything. And whilst advancing and smashing its enemies within 1st Island Chain and 2nd Island Chain, it should not take PRC several months or years to do so. In order to secure the scenario where PRC can brutally smash every enemy within this area now and over the next few years, then the 7% increase in defence spending is not nearly enough.

PRC should give out a clear warning: In case of war, if one Imperial missile reach its mainland, the limited use of tactical nukes will be used against the enemy, which is simply what the U.S. would have done if anyone was "flying around" its coast and tried to bomb the continental U.S.

Remember, the PRC is facing a crazy and radical Trump regime that is talking about increasing the defence spending by 500 billion USD. That is sick as it gets.

Imagine this scenario in the future. Imperial Terror Empire has won. It has broken Russia, PRC, DPRK, and any other Muslim nation, including nuclear-armed Pakistan, Iran divided in several pieces, Algeria smashed, Turkey is in that scenario half Kurdish, etc. and everyone else including PRC has also bowed down to the Empire.

How do you explain that to the next generation of people, oh here is the explanation, it goes like this:

"Once up on a time (20 years ago) there was this country called PRC that had 43,5 Trillion GDP PPP economy in 2026 - and it achieved 50 Trillion GDP PPP by the year 2030, but they were naive, decided to spend 1,4% of GDP on defense whilst their enemies took out every other country that was friendly to PRC and eventually they came for PRC itself. THE END".
I'm addressing people who think who seems to think that US and it allies can freely and uncontested bomb China's factories as if China is like Venuezuela or a bit better, Iran.

And also, you are the nutjob to think that China should respond with tactical nukes to conventional bombs and missiles.

The correct response is to declare war, and then have the PLA use their conventional missiles to bomb the attackers back to the stoneage / until they surrender.

Nukes are only used as the response to nukes.
 

bsdnf

Senior Member
Registered Member
I'm addressing people who think who seems to think that US and it allies can freely and uncontested bomb China's factories as if China is like Venuezuela or a bit better, Iran.

And also, you are the nutjob to think that China should respond with tactical nukes to conventional bombs and missiles.

The correct response is to declare war, and then have the PLA use their conventional missiles to bomb the attackers back the to the stoneage / to they surrender.

Nukes are only used as the response to nukes.
In recent years, some CSIS war games have included scenarios involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons to bomb PLA‘s beachheads. I think you should understand just how low America's bottom line has become.

Nuclear expansion is not a future tense, but a present tense.
 
Top