Name calling doesn't make your arguments "better". It is important to be respectful towards people who wants PRC's best.
The argument was already well good enough; the other parts were just extra. You may want the best for the PRC, but you suggestions are the worst.
No one wants another Century of Humiliation.
Which is why we invest in the future rather than spend as much as we can afford now.
And I am fully aware of the fact that you have more people agreeing with you on this forum regarding this topic, but that is completely irrelevant as last time I checked, this forum doesn't have 1,45 billion people or members.
You are under the impression that a poll in China would reveal the majority to want the military budget to triple at the expense of social development? The people here are pro-China and military fans and nobody wants to increase China's militry budget more than what the CCP deems appropriate. You think common people will want this? The common Chinese people are not political and will likely ask for a decrease to increase the spending on aspects that affect their daily lives.
On other forums, people may agree more with me. So it's irrelevant.
LMFAO OK, in other worlds/galaxies, X
may happen so what happens here in the forum you're currently in is irrelevent, right?
2) Furthermore, your reply seems to focus extremely on the number I mentioned for the DPRK (30%). I never said that PRC should spend 30%. I encourage you to find where did I say that. I have stated couple of times previously that PRC need to spend around 2 Trillion PPP, which is just above 4% of GDP PPP.
You called the 30% a boss number. That means it's be best; we should all aim for it. We all wanna be boss. That's the implication. If you said that's the highest, no argument there.
In case of DPRK, they had - and still have to - spend around 30% in order to secure their own existence. During 1990, when USSR was no more, DPRK still survived and are in much better position today compared to 1990s. Russia, on the other hand, is suffering from traitors they allowed to take power in 1985, and is battling a second-largest or rather second-most powerful country in the former USSR which is fully backed by NATO. DRPK had to come to assist Russia in order to clean out the area between Sumy and Sudzha.
Hence, there is a big chance that DPRK would not have existed by the time George Bush jr took the office if DPRK had followed the idea of spending less than 2% on defence. Both Bill Clinton and George Bush jr had plans to strike DPRK in some way or another during 1990s and 2000s before Obama tok office.
I feel you're not much grateful of the sacrifice that DPRK is doing, a sacrifice that benefits PRC and keeping U.S. troops away from the PRC border.
I said that 30% was a sacrifice they needed to give during desperate times and I said that today, that number is no longer necessary. You just wrote paragraphs that dance around this without challenging it.
3) Let me tell you where the PRC leadership has finally understood what I was saying previously, and that is increasing the number of nuclear weapons as much as PRC is able to do. I have always felt that 200 or 300 nukes is pathetic for a superpower, and as you can see, PRC leadership is following the line I agree with in the area of nuclear build-up.
Straw man. I agree that we should build more nukes; the CCP agrees. You said you want a double to triple boost to the defense budget. That's not the same.
PRC must have and should have a 4-digit number of nuclear warheads. As fast as possible.
That's not gonna be your call cus you just made up a big number cus you think it's the best way to be scary. In reality, the PRC will decide that number depending on how much is needed to strike every country that coule be hostile to us, the ability of our nukes, and the abilities on the horizon. If we were to listen to a person like you earlier, we might have 10,000 DF-4 and DF-5 to maintain. Instead, we can make more of DF-31, then 41, and now ZF and 61, and tomorrow, maybe 71, 81, etc... Some of them are going to be more survivable and get the job done better than 10+ older missiles. See? It's not so simple as trying to scare people with big numbers.
So let me ask you: do you agree or disagree with the fact that PRC has started to expand nuclear warheads considerably? Because I fully agree with PRC that PRC should do this and PRC is simply doing it.
Absolutely agree and support it.
So the area where I disagree so far with the PRC leadership, are the number of conventional weapons. There should be much more of this as well.
If we were to listen to a person like you earlier, we might have a large amount of J-8, JH-7, H-6, 052B, etc... to maintain. Instead, we can make more of J-11B, J-10C, 052D, and today, J-35, J-20A, 055, and tomorrow, J-36, J-50, 096, etc... A lot of them are going to be more survivable and get the job done better than 10 older planes/ships. They will be designs that the US fears rather than looks down upon. See? It's not so simple as trying to scare people with big numbers. You have to actually have insider military decisions.
4) Finally, in order to comment the "EXACTLY" comment you mentioned, whether or PRC spends 4% on defence is simply a number I think would be sufficient to match what the U.S. has.
But you think that based on nothing. Right now, China is coming out with new generation designs for the first time clearly outmatching the US in quality and building current designs much faster than the US can in quantity. So that indicates that the current number is enough.
What we do know so far is that what PRC spends on conventional weapons is not enough compared to the economic and industrial strength PRC has to produce even more weapons.
No we don't know that. You imagine that without insider knowledge and without logic.
As long as PRC doesn't have anything near 25+ Virginia SSNs, 75+ Arleigh Burke destroyers, at least 10 super carriers, several LHA / LHD of the Type 076 (just 1 so far), several hundred tankers and strategic transports along with 1.000+ (planning 2.400) stealth fighters, then PRC is not spending enough.
No, that is your imagination on how the PLA fights. It seems your mind is limited to plane vs plane and ship vs ship but in actuality, battles use complex strategies to cause maximal damage with minimal assets or risk, such as using a $10M missile to take out a $20B carrier with its airwing or using a $10M wingman drone to take down a $140M Raptor or $90M F-35. And then there's the aspect that I already mentioned of how much do you build today to protect yourself vs how much better it would be to build the new designs of tomorrow. You don't know any of this, but you think you can tell the CCP, with all the classified information, how to spend that money? It's laughable.
Zero stealth bombers from PRC so far as well. H-20 no where to be seen.
1. OK, you go design it then. Cus it sounds like you don't think they're smart enough or working fast enough.
2. What kind of plane do you need if you can hit any targets with missiles from the mainland?
So, whatever needs to be spent to reach the level of what U.S. has in its arsenal, needs to be spent, whether or not that is "just 2,5 or 3%, or 4%.
1. Whatever needs to be spent to defeat the US needs to be spent, not some randomly inflated number you made up.
2. But that doesn't mean that we are so unintelligent, we can only copy their numbers rather than use less to intelligently defeat more.
3. When do you want to reach those levels? Yesterday, we would have a huge fleet of obsolete machines. Today, we would really just be matching the US. Tomorrow, we would overmatch them. We cannot build a generational fleet every time we invent new designs.
You don't think about the complexities; you just want large numbers and a generic "match" for them.
Neither you or I know what number (percentage) needs to be spent to match the U.S. conventionally,
But the CCP knows and they make the budget.
however, it is very clear that today's spending is not enough.
No, it's clear that since we are moving faster technologically and building faster, that it's enough.
A 4-digit number of nuclear warheads will very soon be the reality by 2030.
No, that is just a number you made up because you don't know anything and you want to cover that with scary numbers. A nuke built today is worth many nukes built a decade a go and a nuke built a decade from now is worth many built today. Your 4 digit random number means nothing.
The disagreement is in regards to conventional assets.
The disagreement is in regards to you thinking you know better than the people in the CCP with all the information that you and I could never have.
