Top Chinese diplomat tells US to 'shut up' on arms spending

By that logic, if the price of automobile in place A is three to ten times as expensive as that in place B, despite the fact per capita earning in A is three times as much as that in place B, we shall conclude the living standard in A is about the same leve as that in B?

 

We are not discussing economic matters or standard of living. The argument about defense spending by real_egal was that the amount of money that they spent was an indication of their militarism. The implication is that if they spend more than everybody else then they must have a larger/more powerful army than everybody else.

Their armed forces are similar in composition to that of South Korea and Taiwan. This does not indicate a wildly militaristic governement but rather one whose forces are similar to their neighbors. They are spending more money but what they get for that money is roughly equal to everybody else gets. If you somehow still think that they are more militaristic than everybody else on the basis of their defense spending I don't know what to say.

 

My post was in response to NewYorker's claim that Japan is the most peaceful country in another thread, and the special wondering about Chinese military spending, despite the fact that Japan spends 50% more with only 10% of population. Hipocracy at its best, no matter how one spins with numbers.

Not sure whether you noticed, that your data was 15 years old. There has been a noticeable policy switch in Japan in recent years, acompanying with official shrine visit. That's why the neighboring countries are so alert about this disturbing change.

My argument was never about who spent more. It's about the big fuss that China spent 10% of US' budget, with almost 5 times population.

BTW, to suggest Japanese military strength is just on par with South Korean is rather inaccurate. Japanese Navy is rated at 2nd place worldwide.

 

Why don't you boycott credit cards? China to US is like credit cards to consumers.

 

U.S. should just shut up about on other countries' military spending, much less speaking we are talking about one of five permanent security consel members. Seriously, the rest of the world doesn't spend as much as US alone.

And, as much as I don't like Iranians to get their hands on nuclear technology, I see no legal ground to ban them from getting it. On one hand, we turn a blind eye to Isralies' using cluster bombs (which they bought from US) in civilian populated areas in Lebanon, and on the other hand we make a big fuss about Syrian and Iran exporting some shoulder fired rockets to Lebanon? On one hand, Pentagon is testing nuclear tactical bombs, and on the other hand other countries cannot even think about nuclear technology? That sort of thinking is laughable, and one has to be naive to think others will simple take orders from US.

 

This is totaly false. I begin to wonder if you are making this stuff up.

Japan doesn't have a single ship larger than a destroyer.

United States
Great Britian
France
Russia
China
India
and I'm sure two or three I am missing

All have Navys that are in a totaly better class than Japan's. Japan's navy is significantly better than South Korea's Navy, but South Korea's air force is equally better than Japan's.

 

First of all, the source of your source are just "some" (estimates), which are neither verified nor verifiable. Second, you are the person who claims stats can be easily manipulated, aren't you? Third, even if unit cost of Japanese vehicles was 3-10 times more expensive, it doesn't necessarily mean everything else was more expensive, unless "vehicle" is the only component of Japanese military hardware. Fourth, and more importantly, the data are at least some 15 years old. Any data that might be valid then has no bearing on the current affair. Is it your intention to mislead by citing dubious and obsolete data?

 

How can you accuse real_egal making stuff up without first questioning if he has any source?

A simple google search on keywords "modern japanese naval capabilities" yields the following article in the first place, which by the way, is very up to date, unlike your previous researched source.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200522521.asp

 

Actually if you bothered to actually read the link instead of just finding the first most convienient argument that you could find, you would see that they have fiscal year 2005 data.

 

If you would like a ship-by-ship breakdown of each navy, I would be glad to provide it. As what you are asking will entail a significant amount of time on my part I only ask that you actually look at the data and give it a fair chance instead of blindly responding.

 

I have no idea. I would tend to agree that your guesses are pretty close. I would also suggest that perhaps dollar spent per dollar of GDP might be a more realistic way to approach the subject. I would think it natural to expect countries with more money to be able to spend more on defense.

People are reading too much into what I am writing I think. I am not here saying "Japan good, China bad". As it was right to call out New Yorker for saying that Japan was a super-peaceful nation, I think no less right to call out anybody who claims that Japan has amassed a disproportionately large force.

On the basis total military quality and strength, the Japanese forces are commensurate with what you would expect someone who was trying to match what South Korea, China, and Taiwan have.

 

I don't know what you mean by ship-by-ship breakdown, and I don't know in any real world warfare battles are fought in one ship to one ship manner. Your rebuttal to real_egal is that his claim that "Japanese Navy is rated at 2nd place worldwide" is a lie or something he made up. The article I cited is not written by some commie conspirator/jap-hater. Neither I nor real_egal has access to Japanese top navy secret, we go by what we read on the Internet or newspaper. If you have any problem with its authenticity, take it up to the author. Accusing somebody making stuff up when you have absolutely no proof does not lend youself any credence.

 

I think you were simply over-reacted, and inaccurately accused me of making stuff up.

First of all, I wasn't even arguing whether a large military spending presents a hostile and threatening pose to other countries. So no right or wong was assumed by me.

Second, the comparison to Japanese spending was simply a directly response to NewYorker's logic and claim. He was wondering who Chinese were planning to go to war with, and they were at least intimidating neighbors, while Japan is the most peaceful country. I just merely pointed out how those 2 statements uttly wrong in logic and contradicting with each other.

Third, it's highly hypocratical to call China out in fifth place of military spending, while Japan sits tight at 2nd place, with 50% more spending and 90% less population, even much less of land.

Fourth, I have been reading in years about how strong Japanese navy is, not from Chinese government, but rahter from Britains, Russians, and Americans, and even Japanese themselves. Again, I do not have habit nor need to make stuff up. You can google it. Any data and facts can be interpreted in different ways though. In fact, about a year ago, I remember a Japanese military official claimed that Japanese navy can take out the whole Chinese East Sea Navy in half an hour. It's certainly not verifible, but rather just an indication, that Japanese navy isn't too shy about their strength themselves.

Fifth, you kind of derailed the thread by throwing interpretations about how each military dollar should valued in different countries. US is totally out of reach by any interpretation, so your main argument seems to be focusing on how Chinese spending is higher than actual number, and Japanese is lower in reality. I wonder why. How high and how low? What's the difference? Didn't you say that military spending doesn't necessary mean amassing a disproportionately large force? Then what's the point to argue this at all? Isn't that the whole point that so many posters pointed out already? China with the biggest population, 4th in GDP, what's the big fuss about their 5th place military spending? Why people have no problem with spending from Japan, Saudi, South Korea etc?

 

wnes, I was wondering what you thought of canoner2002's statement. I'll quote part of it:

Specifically, what I was wondering about was a question that's been kicked around here more than once... North Korea getting atomic weapons. canoner2002 doesn't seem to think we should be trying to prevent other countries from obtaining them, that it's laughable, considering our own policies. What would all of you think if Japan developed atomic weapons (and from what I understand, they could have them in a few months if they made the political decision), and seriously began building up their armed forces in response to North Korea's obtaining atomic weapons and attempt to develop missiles to place them on, along with firing said missiles over Japan in what was clearly an act intended to be provocative, and continuing those tests?

What I'm getting at is something I've yet to understand. China is clearly the one remaining country with a great deal of influence on North Korea. I suspect they may even have helped them along in their weapons research. After all, they helped Pakistan. For the sake of argument, however, lets pretend that NK did this all by themselves. Why hasn't China prevented them from doing so, or at least made an effort stronger than what we've seen thus far? Does China want Japan to have atomic weapons? Does China want Japan to build up it's armed forces far beyond where they are today? Japan could certainly do so, if it desires to. And I can't think of anything more likely to bring that about than a nuclear armed NK with atomic-tipped missiles, firing test shots over the home islands of Japan. Can you?




Keep D&D Civil.

 

I would like to chime in and offer my 2 cents, if you don't mind.

I think canoner2002 is correct to say there is no legal ground to ban them. Chinese do not want North Korean or Japan to have nuclear weapons. Not because Chinese want others to take a higher moral ground, which they couldn't keep themselves, but rather out of plain self-interest. But US always claims otherwise.

I think you are wrong to think that Chinese have much influence on North Korean. Here are a few facts as indication:

1. In North Korean war memorials, there was NO mentioning of Chinese military support, it is all about Kim. Kim led brave Korean people defeated evil US and South Korea, although in reality Kim didn't do much at all, and he was totally defeated.

2. Tens of thousands Chinese soldiers were burried in North Korea. N.K. government leveled all their tombs, including the one of Mao's eldest son, simply to wash that piece of history.

3. In nuclear weapon talk, N.K. insisted to talk with US directly, refused China's participation. US insisted to have China as a mediator, refused to talk to N.K. directly.

4. N.K. critisized China long long time ago, again and again, that China is totally moving away from Socialism and Communism.

So, N.K is NOT a puppet government of China, and it never was, unlike some wishfully think.

Japan on the other hand, can have nuclear weapon within a month if they want to, with their reserve, technology, and resource, as some Japanese officials claimed. Is that a concern for China? Of course. What will Chinese do to prevent that happening? Build up military and try international diplomacy. Now, if Japan just goes ahead to build the bomb, will Chinese bomb their site? Absolutely not. Even Japan is a lot weaker than they are now. No such historical event would suggest so. On the other hand, if Israel is not an Ally of US, what would happen to their WMDs? I am sure US would take care of them. That's just the difference between US and China. Power disparency is obviously high, but mentality is always different as well.

 

And please tell us - what military activity has Japan excercised since 1950?

 

I would not want Japan to have nuclear weapons. It's like giving a convicted drunk driver a bottle of whiskey and car keys. Sure they went to rehab, but I don't trust them. I'm sure there are still people over there that are still bitter about us nuking them twice, even though they deserved it.

 

Interesting analogy. Except that Japan never had nukes. So actually, the only nation to use nukes (us being the USA) still has them. Japan never used or had nukes (your analogy being alcohol) so if they developed them (which they won't), it would be the first time.

We're the convicted drunk drivers - hate to bust up your methaphor....

By the way...I'd rather Japan has nukes then any of the following list of nations:

Israel
Iran
Iraq
Jordon
Syria
Afganistan
China
North Korea
South Korea
Phillipines
Pakistan
India
Kazistan
Serbia
Lybia
Any African nation
Any middle east nation
Any South American Nation
any Central American nation
Russia
Ukraine
Cuba
Any carribean nation


As for Japan "deserving" to be nukes...what determines that?

 

First, the link you provided says nothing about second strongest navy in the world.

More importantly, I just offered to provide you with proof but you claimed Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer on me.

Tell me if you want empirical proof. I am willing to provide it. If I provide it I expect you to look at it. Otherwise stop obfuscating.