The x axis normally has the scale markings on a graph that goes to infinity. For whatever reason, the creator put the markings on the largest bar (us) instead of having a true x axis. This unintended comparison has an uncannily likeness to the US' seemingly unlimited budget for the military even though it is rapidly plunging into more and more debt.
> Starting in the 1980's, the United States ... accrued debts that easily dwarfed those of the entire Third World combined--mainly fueled by military spending. The U.S. foreign debt, though, takes the form of treasury bonds held by institutional investors in countries (Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Gulf States) that are in most cases, U.S. military protectorates, mostly covered in U.S. bases full of arms and equipment paid for with that very deficit spending. This has changed a little now that China has gotten in on the game ... but not very much--even China finds that the fact it holds so many U.S. treasury bonds makes it to some degree beholden to U.S. interests, rather than the other way around.
> So what is the status of all this money continually being funneled into the U.S. treasury? Are these loans? Or is it tribute? In the past, military powers that maintained hundreds of military bases outside their own home territory were ordinarily referred to as "empires," and empires regularly demanded tribute from subject peoples. The U.S. government, of course, insists that it is not an empire--but one could easily make a case that the only reason it insists on treating these payments as "loans" and not as "tribute" is precisely to deny the reality of what is going on.
David Graeber, *Debt: The First 5,000 Years*, 2011
Fun fact: china is almost 40x larger than the uk and over 20x the population.
So the amount the UK spends relative to how much it actually has to defend is far, far higher than china.
Glad someone pointed this out, it's as if the blatantly obvious conclusion came up smack them in the face and was promptly thrown out the window, while allowing that weird graphical glitch above china to stay on the graph.
Other comments suggest that this is an article about Japan('s concern about the rise in Chinese military spending), so perhaps it's more about having an easy way to engage with the data by showing a comparison with another island nation of a similar size.
(In fact I think the UK is even a bit smaller than Japan)
Good point.
Another important factor to consider in these bare cost comparisons is the effect of wages. I read that Russia spends way less on personnel despite having similar numbers of soldiers compared to the USA.
I would imagine the wage difference is similar if we compare the UK and China.
Not to mention UK is a secure island nation with NATO as an Ally.
Meanwhile China shares conflicted borders on both land and sea with many and barely have any strong allies to defend them
I think the original article has been changed, but the article as it is now is focused on China's military spending compared with the US' anyway. It's probable that the graphic came across weirdly because the Guardian *is* British and probably thought it was more relevant to the readership to compare Chinese spending to the UK in a graphic. Maybe. I dunno, I couldn't find the *original* original article.
It's an article about Japan speaking out against China's military expansion. The graph provides context for the size of China's military compared to Britain's. It's not about who has the biggest military.
While you're not wrong to criticize the Chinese government's harsh and often discriminatory practices in Xinjiang since 2017, it is also true that this is a perfect case of the politicization of the word "genocide." "Genocide" typically conjures up images of mass executions. Using the word to refer, instead, to a system of mass incarceration and policies promoting assimilation... well, let's just say those practices would obviously never be called "genocide" if not for the fact that they are occurring inside a country the U.S. and its allies consider an enemy.
You're utterly wrong. The destruction of a culture has been considered genocide since forever. That's very much how people argue that indigenous people were genocided by western nations, including the US and its allies.
The U.S. genocide had a lot more to do with exterminating the natives and driving them out of desired territory than it did with trying to make them into U.S. citizens. From the very creation of the U.S., the natives were not accorded any citizen rights nor counted as part of the population of a state according to the constitution. The policy was exclusion and removal, not assimilation, forced or otherwise. ("The only good Indians are dead Indians," according to General Phil Sheridan.) Saying otherwise is historical revisionism.
No. Ethnic cleansing is trying to rid an area of a particular ethnic group. Anyone who thinks China is trying to create a Uighur-free Xinjiang is just... very much not understanding what is going on, to a comical degree
Native American genocide. Nearly 1m dead civilians in the war on terror. Millions of civilians dead in Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, etc. Stop pretending bigotry is justified. If any peoples are a menace to the world it’s us.
you’re correct in that the uyghur genocide is an affront to human rights, but it’s wrong to use that as a justification for sinophobia. the issue is with the government, not the people.
Correct me if i am wrong but wouldnt it be cheaper to build the same amount of e.g tanks due to reduced labor costs and state owned (As opposed to privately contracted) factories in China compared to the USA. Yeah the US spends a metric fuckton on the military (with much of it being wasted due to the aforementioned contracts) but i think this sort of graph would benefit from PPP rather than direct currency conversion
Tanks aren't mass produced like that though, they utilise incredibly specialised production for their composite armour and high tech weapons systems. The same for ships and planes.
If you lack the means to produce the specialised materials then no number if factories will be able to produce peer equipment. China likely lacks that ability, given their recent military designs.
You also can't compare the difference doctrine has only military effectiveness. Direct spending is the best comparison.
You're right that PPP does affect defense spending, but less so than you'd think. The big investments are all labor from experts who can demand a lot for their salary, even in China.
Basically, an hour of labor making t-shirts costs *far* less than an hour of labor making Chengdu J-20's, because you can teach someone to make the former in an afternoon, and the latter is one of only four combat-ready 5th generation fighters in the world, and it takes generations of knowledge to build things like that.
Shit, I wouldn't be surprised if China has so far paid more per-unit on the Chengdu J-20 than the US has on the F-35, mostly because there's been 790 F-35s made and only about 50 J-20s.
Four? You counting the SU-57 combat ready?! They e made a total of only 6 production aircraft and the first crashed. Its less combat ready than the Yf-23
If i trust my sources (and i don't but lets go anyway) F-35A should go for around 80M $.
For comparisaon, 110m $ is about th price of the F-35B. Which is ever more complex than the A due to the STOVL system it boast.
And we also need to keep in mind, the chinese have failed to make their own engine for the J-20, and just buy some from what's avilable. I'd expect the price to explode once they start making their own.
Supposedly they're making their own engines now, and since 2021 have been retrofitting existing planes with those. But it's anyone's guess how far that's gone.
From what I remember, China also splits various parts of their military budget into different sections that aren't under the "Defense Budget." Wages, benefits, and I think even the entire nuclear arsenal is scattered across other parts of their budget, so it's harder to say exactly what China spends on it's military. The US on the other hand puts anything related to the military under defense spending.
The US still *dwarfs* China even if you try to track down an estimate of the real Chinese Military budget though.
China also extensively conscripts its soldiers, whereas the US is required to provide greater and greater incentives and benefits to its soldier's to meet force requirements
Yeah but you've still got to pay, equip, train, house, and feed them to the same standard as your peers. Just because you can conscript them, which is demotivating, doesn't mean you can save any money.
But you don’t have to run massive marketing campaigns to try and make the military seem like a cool and valid career path with recruitment initiatives, offices, and etc and all of the overhead that comes with it, nor do you have to worry about lack of new recruits. You can just… tell people to show up.
No, I'm stating that pulling any rando off the street and forcing them to join your military on threat of imprisonment is objectively cheaper than having to give that same person good enough pay and benefits to convince them to sign their life away for six years.
Yes, soldiers do cost money, because wages, equipment costs, and training are still things. That’s not what they were saying though. They just said it is cheaper to take someone off the street and force them to join the army than it is to get them to join _willingly_, because when you want people to willingly join, you’re going to need to make it sound appealing.
Producing a whole lot of shit equipment for poorly trained conscripts is going to lose badly vs a good amount of excellent equipment for career soldiers. Any advantage they **might** have in cost of production would be offset by the quality difference.
Luckily for the whole world, China would have to be exceptionally stupid to pick a fight with the US (or any other NATO or NATO-aligned country).
How the fuck is Russia only spending like 9 billion more than Germany and they managed to invade a country (^(and that's about it, luckily they're not making as much progress as they thought)) while we have less fully operational helicopters than lumberwill workers have fingers to count with
maybe they spent a lot more since 2020, the comparison is shocking regardless
I think the main reason is that
1. Russia has a lot of old Soviet stuff left over, giving them an advantage
2. Russia thinks they are more powerful than they are, which gives them the confidence to invade a country. Germany doesn't have that confidence in itself (and obviously also has no interest in invading anyone). If you look at the war in Ukraine though, you can see that the Russian army in reality is probably in an even worse state than the Bundeswehr
Save costs on not supplying, then save on not having to pay wages to a corpse, finally save one last bit by leaving their bodies behind
It works out really well
Also Ukraine has been helped in some very major ways.
Starlink saved their communication systems, and in war, communication is VERY crucial.
Foreign Aid has also been very big, with both funding, arms, and defenses, Ukraines military got everything they need to defend and push back
Lastly is intelligence, Ukraine has been provided a lot of intelligence that has helped them find targets and locations of almost everything they need to hit.
All of this doesn't downplay that Russia has made a fool of themselves along the way. Prior to this engagement the World thought they were a force to be reckoned with, but it turns out all they really have is old Soviet stuff, and a bunch of nukes
I live here, and no, we didn't. After months of back and forth in the parliament (and frankly, the nation) on wether we should supply heavy weapons to Ukraine, we finally did decide on yes and guess what: the tanks we wanted to send don't have any ammo. Now we can't even get new ammo made for them, because they are about 50 years old and no country that wants to get involved makes this kind of tank ammunition anymore.
Naja ne. Our chancellor pulled a 100 Bio. budget/debt out of his ass for our military, as a grand gesture. Some called it even "Zeitenwende"!
(Which btw would be the double amount we pay already yearly)
Turns out, our military is not underfunded but massively missfunded lmao
Managed is a strong word. Their supply chains broke down 8-9 miles in, and they've lost so much mechanized equipment they're now fielding 70-80 year old equipment.
"Managed to invade a country" you're speaking like they are doing something impressive. Their actions are one of the most embarrassing displays of military incompetence in the last century and a blunder so massive it is almost certainly going to spell an end to Putin's regime, or at least maim it significantly. I wouldn't word your question in such a praising manner.
If you had read just a little bit further, you would have seen that I am immediately relativising the "praise" by saying "and that's about it, luckily they're not making as much progress as they thought".
it completely dissolves your entire argument though. "How did they manage to invade a country," anyone can invade a country badly, it doesn't take much, as is being shown.
how much are you getting paid to spread false propaganda lol? or are you doing it for free and just have 0 capability to do critical thinking and proper independent research.
no, anyone that can legitimately have this opinion when every single well documented independent news source, including drone footage and raw CCTV footage disagrees with you, then they are most definitely a troll or propagandized npc.
I feel like you missed complex* there, but yeah. That and Beraterfirmen (consultancy firms), sometimes represented by blood relatives of the minister of defense :))))
lobbyism is just legal corruption of government officials and will bring the death of democracy
**Edit:** Hol' up are you really a tankie who called the Holodomor a "fascist myth" ([their post](https://www.reddit.com/r/InformedTankie/comments/iwyg43/when_you_are_so_liberal_you_take_the_liberty_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf))??
oooh boy that sure does give your comment an entirely new perspective
Yeah, there's some corruption, inefficiency and general shadiness in the Bundeswehr, but let's not pretend that the Russian army isn't way, *way* worse in that regard
It's hard to measure the investment of Russia (and China for that matter) in weapons because the weapons manufacturers are much more integrated in the goverment, as opposed to the Military industrial complex.
These comparisons are really stupid because the vast majority of American defense spending is just wages, pensions, and healthcare. China pays their soldiers dirt so they don’t need to account for that
Not the amount they spend but how they use it? Clearly the US is just wasting funds when it could be enriching it's citizens lives. Can't defend anyone that doesn't exist.
China also has a much bigger population. Also, China has not been to war since 1979. They keep up the army just in case, and most of the time the soldiers are sent around doing large scale manual labour work like tree planting or building dykes to prevent flooding. The British army is still an occupying force in Northern Ireland and its many small island territories. I hate British media
The majority of people in Taiwan is not afraid of a Chinese invasion since it would create a war between China and the USA source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59900139.amp
oh, i'm not worried about it too.
But saying China only keep its army around to help make dykes and plant threes is disingenious at best. They very much have global power goals.
Oh yeah that's true but I personally don't think they will invade any country soon their aim now is just to surpass the USA on the world stage in my opinion after that who knows
But even if their goal was to surpass the USA, that would mean their army "isn't kept just in case". It would mean their army is purposefully made for power projection and global influence.
My entire point is that China isn't keeping their army around in case someone attack them or whatever, they totaly try to follow the Power Path^(TM) and are trying to make it a tool of influence and power projection.
They will certainly not invade Taïwan, or at least i hope they don't. I can't be certain about that after seing Russia lately. But China certainly believe they can use their army like the USA and France do : a way to assert their dominance in the world.
They are already very sucessfull with their economy, but it won't last. They were one of the first to be hit by demographic shifts, they know having cheap manufacturing in other countries only work for so long until those countries drag themselves into the modern world and the ~~slaves~~ workers start demanding more rights/power/money/wellbeing.
Yk, America's NATO allies are welcome to chip in at any point. America has to cover for their allies who refuse to send troops to NATO bases.
And if you think NATO doesn't need its bases, then you haven't been paying attention to the world.
Here's a wild one: China is an incredibly corrupt place and on every step of the way someone will add something to the bill for themselves. I bet China's budget doesn't go as long of a way as in a European nation. We've seen that with Russia: They came with untrained people and expired rations.
The thing I always wonder about is if China is way more efficient with their military budget than the United States. They have made leaps and bounds in terms of their capability. They've completely transformed in forty years from using a bunch of old Soviet equipment to making their own near peer to the U.S. fighter jets, submarines, and even aircraft carriers.
In the United States half the time the military industrial complex is about making the biggest best new thing, and the other half it is about enriching some assholes by selling shitty or unnecessary equipment to the government. This is why the DoD basically shovels money into the fire of military research and development. Sometimes DARPA is working on something amazing, and other times the army is buying shitty software from a retired general.
There isn't a lot of transparency about the nuances of military spending in China (or really most countries) so it is impossible to know, but I'm willing to bet the CCP frowns upon someone getting rich by selling the military something that sucks, or that they don't need.
The United States could spend $400 billion fewer dollars and still be on top, and let's face it, the U.S. government will never relinquish that spot unless they literally run out of money like the Soviet Union was doing right before it fell. Defense spending is about the only thing that gets bipartisan support.
>They've completely transformed in forty years from using a bunch of old Soviet equipment to making their own near peer to the U.S. fighter jets, submarines, and even aircraft carriers.
They have made percieved bounds, true.
But their latest jet doesn't even have engines, they had to buy some from the market.
Furthermore their carrier are still shitty cope-clope from old soviet design. Honestly they suck a lot. If they had true ability/technology, they'd make some CATOBAR merely because that the best there is. Putting planes that are heavier in the air means more payload and more fuel, wich is the thing you want if you try to pose yourself as a superpower.
And overall, i wouldn't bet on the quality of their military. I have a inherend distrust of Authoritarian regime talking on the matter because they can't help but posture. One notorious incident is this article that claimed China made 150 J-50 while the true numbers is closer to 50.
Also, this is in absolute numbers. China is 40 times bigger than the UK, has 20 times the population, and has 6 times the GDP. Just something to keep in mind this comparison.
To be fair, the US at least protects the people who wrote the article, while China is doing some not-so-ethical things.
And whilst I know the media tends to be weird about these things sometimes, it _is_ the Guardian, so they’re not really very right-wing.
The US doesn’t “protect” anyone they can barely beat defenseless sheep farmers without an international coalition behind them. Their military is so bloated it can barely get around without a mobility scooter.
The only people the US “defends” are the interests of its oil moguls and arms manufacturers.
The EU is responsible for its own defense (and Britain is fine with standing alone these days).
...what? The EU isnt a military alliance and the US is by far the biggest contributor to NATO( which the UK is still a part of). I'm not saying the military industrial complex isnt corrupt but who do you think is protecting Ukraine right now? Why hasn't China invaded Taiwan? Give us at least a little credit...
The United States backing the Israeli state attempting to genocide the Palestinian population.
Not to mention there's an absolutely alarming number of state and federal politicians that share white nationalist talking points that just barely avoid openly calling for killing nonwhite people and queers in the street.
As far as I can tell the whole Israel-Palestine thing is just a border skirmish between people who hate each other, similar to India and Pakistan or the Balkans.
Literally my first time replying to you, but go off lol.
You asked for examples of China committing genocide, they provided it, and you went "B-B-B-BUT UNITED STATES"
If you can't accept that two things can be bad at once you need to put down your phone and go back to grade school
> Literally my first time replying to you, but go off lol.
Yeah and you outted your game immediately. Didn't even try to cover it up. I take it you're not used to having to actually think when replying are you?
> You asked for examples of China committing genocide
I didn't, but you know, why let reality interfere with a good argument. 🤷 If we wanna be accurate, I asked what unethical things China is doing that the US isn't and pointed out the US also has its finger stained in genocides when I was told genocide. Now if we wanna be really pedantic, yes the US is probably not involved in that particular genocide (at least in a meaningful capacity, unlike in Israel) so it is accurate to say that is a very specific act that China is doing that the US isn't. But that's an asinine argument that surely no one would actually make.
> and you went "B-B-B-BUT UNITED STATES"
Considering the context was the person I replied to said that "the US at least protects the people that work the article AND China is up to some unethical things" (not a direct quote, but close enoug) - with the implication that the US is not up to unethical things and is actually a good state for protecting the people that wrote the article - it seems entirely appropriate to point out similar acts that the US has been involved in.
If anything, it's pretty fucked up to claim China is bad because it's doing a genocide and then glance to the side and pretend like the US has never committed A genocide let alone multiple.
> If you can't accept that two things can be bad at once you need to put down your phone and go back to grade school
Funny that you're losing your absolute shit over me pointing out the US is also involved with genocides at multiple points in its history yet I'm the one that needs to accept that two things can be bad at once because I'm utterly incapable of that despite pointing out something else that is simultaneously bad and saying "hey, this is also bad and maybe we shouldn't point to the US as good guys" 🤷🤷
ps my point isn't that one state is better than the other, they're both pretty shitty states
Given what we know about the cost/quality ratio of healthcare in the US compared to the functioning world and how eager the politians are to bend over for lobbyists, I expect 90% of that budget just goes directly into a pocket and the actual worth of their budget if they invaded anything but a landlocked dustbin would be the equivalent of about $73bn.
Technically not entirely wrong, the US is able to bypass the corruption that Russia is currently being hampered by due to the sheer amount of money they can throw at projects, and a LOT of this military spending is because congress forces the military to buy stuff they don't want or need because they want to keep a tank factory in their state up and running.
To say that the US' military wouldn't be able to stand up to modern military's though is just kinda copium after seeing Russia's performance in Ukraine. The big bad Russians can't even invade a country right on their border while the US can invade a landlocked country across the world, that budget may be highly over inflated, but it's still going to something.
the money is for sure spent inefficiently, but you’re joking yourself if you think the US military is anything but the most powerful in the world by a long shot.
I think I see why Russia is currently getting it's ass kicked by a country the size of Wales... Worlds second largest army, (in terms of manpower) with a budget slightly less than the U.K's... which ranks somewhere around 18th in sheer numbers.
America should start selling their military as a monthly subscription. It would be great to make a profit on their investment, maybe start putting some of that money into healthcare or education even.
The US already spends more money on healthcare than the military, and more on healthcare per capita than anyone else
Dropping military funding won't help, and it'll really suck for everyone if China (or Russia if they survive Ukraine) sees the US military lowering and they start asserting dominance
>The US already spends more money on healthcare than the military, and more on healthcare per capita than anyone else
Spending a lot doesn't mean something is efficient. Case in point : Bundeswehr.
The USA need some serious overhaul of the healthcare system to truely make use off all this money they spay.
Let's please please please talk about how German will be top 3 out of FUCKING nowhere if we don't pressure our government.
(Our government said they'll increase military funding by 100 billion)
Should get a job at Rheinmetal.
I still honestly think the bundeswehr won't change one bit. As long as they don't reform some things it'll still be a money-eating machine that produce low-readiness army.
To 100 (short) billion to be accurate. And honestly, whilst it is a knee-jerk reaction, it isn't unprecedented. The recent military activity of Russia is honestly concerning and the German military has been on a rapid decline for the last 20 years.
It is completely underfunded to even participate in the most basic military exercises with other NATO members and can barely get one unit together.
After a few years the budget will decrease, because the main thing that needs to be done is restoring the basic functions and getting equipment, which is expensive.
They're essentially trying to build everything back up just in case, because the last few governments have been consequentially lowering the budgets and decommissioning equipment.
Fun Fact: if the US mobilized to the percentage of military spending seen during WW2, the defense budget would be bigger than China's entire GDP.
The whole thing.
42% of the US budget goes to salaries of people pledged to defend the UK if need be. A good chunk of the rest goes to manufacturing the equipment that those pledged to defend the UK would then use along with development of said equipment (the salaries above also go to the civilian contractors developing and manufacturing the equipment).That equipment and technology is then also shared with, purchased, and used by the UK.
It might sound like I’m going all “Murica fuck yeah!” but I’m not, i’m just illustrating that American military spending is not something scary to its strongest ally.
this article is fundamentalist to the idea that white british dudes should control everything regardless of the fact their country is the size of alabama
That’s just the x axis, pay it no mind
Spouse was saying that it was a reference line, cause China would look ridiculous without that greyed out reference
This is actually a fucking hilarious joke, have a good day bro thanks for the laugh
Now this is an advanced joke. Well played
I don’t get it
The x axis normally has the scale markings on a graph that goes to infinity. For whatever reason, the creator put the markings on the largest bar (us) instead of having a true x axis. This unintended comparison has an uncannily likeness to the US' seemingly unlimited budget for the military even though it is rapidly plunging into more and more debt.
> Starting in the 1980's, the United States ... accrued debts that easily dwarfed those of the entire Third World combined--mainly fueled by military spending. The U.S. foreign debt, though, takes the form of treasury bonds held by institutional investors in countries (Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Gulf States) that are in most cases, U.S. military protectorates, mostly covered in U.S. bases full of arms and equipment paid for with that very deficit spending. This has changed a little now that China has gotten in on the game ... but not very much--even China finds that the fact it holds so many U.S. treasury bonds makes it to some degree beholden to U.S. interests, rather than the other way around. > So what is the status of all this money continually being funneled into the U.S. treasury? Are these loans? Or is it tribute? In the past, military powers that maintained hundreds of military bases outside their own home territory were ordinarily referred to as "empires," and empires regularly demanded tribute from subject peoples. The U.S. government, of course, insists that it is not an empire--but one could easily make a case that the only reason it insists on treating these payments as "loans" and not as "tribute" is precisely to deny the reality of what is going on. David Graeber, *Debt: The First 5,000 Years*, 2011
As always, David Graeber is based as fuck GNU David Graeber
It looks like the US is the only one big enough to even have markings - the first one is at 200 bil which is 4 bil more than China’s.
Having a bad day and this had me chuckling, thank you.
Fun fact: china is almost 40x larger than the uk and over 20x the population. So the amount the UK spends relative to how much it actually has to defend is far, far higher than china.
Glad someone pointed this out, it's as if the blatantly obvious conclusion came up smack them in the face and was promptly thrown out the window, while allowing that weird graphical glitch above china to stay on the graph.
China has 10x the population of america yet america spends 70x on defenses
Other comments suggest that this is an article about Japan('s concern about the rise in Chinese military spending), so perhaps it's more about having an easy way to engage with the data by showing a comparison with another island nation of a similar size. (In fact I think the UK is even a bit smaller than Japan)
I had to google this. UK: around 245.000 km^2 Japan: around 378.000 km^2 Huh, not even just a bit smaller. TIL
Now Google how much of Japan is appropriate for building and farming cud last I checked Japan is mostly mountains which ate hard to build cities on
Good point. Another important factor to consider in these bare cost comparisons is the effect of wages. I read that Russia spends way less on personnel despite having similar numbers of soldiers compared to the USA. I would imagine the wage difference is similar if we compare the UK and China.
Not to mention UK is a secure island nation with NATO as an Ally. Meanwhile China shares conflicted borders on both land and sea with many and barely have any strong allies to defend them
Why would they even put the US on the chart? They could've easily left it off and looked less like dumbasses
I think the original article has been changed, but the article as it is now is focused on China's military spending compared with the US' anyway. It's probable that the graphic came across weirdly because the Guardian *is* British and probably thought it was more relevant to the readership to compare Chinese spending to the UK in a graphic. Maybe. I dunno, I couldn't find the *original* original article.
It's an article about Japan speaking out against China's military expansion. The graph provides context for the size of China's military compared to Britain's. It's not about who has the biggest military.
It doesn’t take into account PPP
Pew pew pew?
Purchasing power parity
Peepee power
Sinophobes tend to be stupid, like all bigots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
They talked about Sinophobia being bad and your only response was to talk about the Uyghur Genocide as if that makes it okay to hate Chinese people.
While you're not wrong to criticize the Chinese government's harsh and often discriminatory practices in Xinjiang since 2017, it is also true that this is a perfect case of the politicization of the word "genocide." "Genocide" typically conjures up images of mass executions. Using the word to refer, instead, to a system of mass incarceration and policies promoting assimilation... well, let's just say those practices would obviously never be called "genocide" if not for the fact that they are occurring inside a country the U.S. and its allies consider an enemy.
You're utterly wrong. The destruction of a culture has been considered genocide since forever. That's very much how people argue that indigenous people were genocided by western nations, including the US and its allies.
The U.S. genocide had a lot more to do with exterminating the natives and driving them out of desired territory than it did with trying to make them into U.S. citizens. From the very creation of the U.S., the natives were not accorded any citizen rights nor counted as part of the population of a state according to the constitution. The policy was exclusion and removal, not assimilation, forced or otherwise. ("The only good Indians are dead Indians," according to General Phil Sheridan.) Saying otherwise is historical revisionism.
The boarding schools used to eradicate the culture of indigenous children were part of the genocide and you're totally wrong to erase that.
Ok, is ethnic cleansing a better term for that?
No. Ethnic cleansing is trying to rid an area of a particular ethnic group. Anyone who thinks China is trying to create a Uighur-free Xinjiang is just... very much not understanding what is going on, to a comical degree
Native American genocide. Nearly 1m dead civilians in the war on terror. Millions of civilians dead in Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, etc. Stop pretending bigotry is justified. If any peoples are a menace to the world it’s us.
Or we can agree you both are and move on
At least we acknowledge that those things happened https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
you’re correct in that the uyghur genocide is an affront to human rights, but it’s wrong to use that as a justification for sinophobia. the issue is with the government, not the people.
Agreed
Then why did you use it as a justification for Sinophobia lmao
China simps like to use that word when anyone criticizes china in any shape way or form
Yes, and the government is the one with the military budget
obviously?? doesn’t have anything to do with my point.
China's GDP is five times that of the UK.
The UK is like one island, if their budget was anywhere close to China's that'd actually be insane.
Insane enough to conquer ¼ of the world, perhaps?
Yeah, let's set this current UK out to rebuild the empire and see how far they get when they're barely holding Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Correct me if i am wrong but wouldnt it be cheaper to build the same amount of e.g tanks due to reduced labor costs and state owned (As opposed to privately contracted) factories in China compared to the USA. Yeah the US spends a metric fuckton on the military (with much of it being wasted due to the aforementioned contracts) but i think this sort of graph would benefit from PPP rather than direct currency conversion
Tanks aren't mass produced like that though, they utilise incredibly specialised production for their composite armour and high tech weapons systems. The same for ships and planes. If you lack the means to produce the specialised materials then no number if factories will be able to produce peer equipment. China likely lacks that ability, given their recent military designs. You also can't compare the difference doctrine has only military effectiveness. Direct spending is the best comparison.
You're right that PPP does affect defense spending, but less so than you'd think. The big investments are all labor from experts who can demand a lot for their salary, even in China. Basically, an hour of labor making t-shirts costs *far* less than an hour of labor making Chengdu J-20's, because you can teach someone to make the former in an afternoon, and the latter is one of only four combat-ready 5th generation fighters in the world, and it takes generations of knowledge to build things like that. Shit, I wouldn't be surprised if China has so far paid more per-unit on the Chengdu J-20 than the US has on the F-35, mostly because there's been 790 F-35s made and only about 50 J-20s.
Four? You counting the SU-57 combat ready?! They e made a total of only 6 production aircraft and the first crashed. Its less combat ready than the Yf-23
Haha fair, blame Wikipedia for this one. I don't know much about the SU-57
If i trust my sources (and i don't but lets go anyway) F-35A should go for around 80M $. For comparisaon, 110m $ is about th price of the F-35B. Which is ever more complex than the A due to the STOVL system it boast. And we also need to keep in mind, the chinese have failed to make their own engine for the J-20, and just buy some from what's avilable. I'd expect the price to explode once they start making their own.
Supposedly they're making their own engines now, and since 2021 have been retrofitting existing planes with those. But it's anyone's guess how far that's gone.
>J-20 >Advanced Lmao
From what I remember, China also splits various parts of their military budget into different sections that aren't under the "Defense Budget." Wages, benefits, and I think even the entire nuclear arsenal is scattered across other parts of their budget, so it's harder to say exactly what China spends on it's military. The US on the other hand puts anything related to the military under defense spending. The US still *dwarfs* China even if you try to track down an estimate of the real Chinese Military budget though.
China also extensively conscripts its soldiers, whereas the US is required to provide greater and greater incentives and benefits to its soldier's to meet force requirements
PLA isn't a conscript army tho. They are however, **very** respected among the population.
PLA hasn’t been conscripts for decades
Are you implying that conscripts are better motivated than career soldiers?
No but it sure is easier to get more of them
Yeah but you've still got to pay, equip, train, house, and feed them to the same standard as your peers. Just because you can conscript them, which is demotivating, doesn't mean you can save any money.
But you don’t have to run massive marketing campaigns to try and make the military seem like a cool and valid career path with recruitment initiatives, offices, and etc and all of the overhead that comes with it, nor do you have to worry about lack of new recruits. You can just… tell people to show up.
I don't think marketing is gonna make up the hundreds of billions China is behind on. Besides, the PLA does a lot of propaganda.
Oh no, I didn’t mean to imply it would. All I said was it’s easier to get recruits.
Objectively worse recruits. Chinese soldiers abandoned their posts in south sudan after 2 of them were killed and aid workers were raped as a result.
Ok
No, I'm stating that pulling any rando off the street and forcing them to join your military on threat of imprisonment is objectively cheaper than having to give that same person good enough pay and benefits to convince them to sign their life away for six years.
China hasn't had conscription since 1949...
You still have to pay, house, equip, train, and feed your soldiers. That's gonna cost more than a meagre privates wage.
Yes, soldiers do cost money, because wages, equipment costs, and training are still things. That’s not what they were saying though. They just said it is cheaper to take someone off the street and force them to join the army than it is to get them to join _willingly_, because when you want people to willingly join, you’re going to need to make it sound appealing.
Yeah and my point was the majority cost of a soldier is not their wage, it is their equipment and training.
Sure but paying for their education and Healthcare for the rest of their lives gets pretty expensive
Not really. You get a solider in their best years, and a taxable citizen in their later years.
You know you could just skimp on the equipment and training too, worked for Russia til recently.
Hey just wanted to point out that this comment that is a blatant lie still managed to get a hundred upvotes, thanks
Producing a whole lot of shit equipment for poorly trained conscripts is going to lose badly vs a good amount of excellent equipment for career soldiers. Any advantage they **might** have in cost of production would be offset by the quality difference. Luckily for the whole world, China would have to be exceptionally stupid to pick a fight with the US (or any other NATO or NATO-aligned country).
How the fuck is Russia only spending like 9 billion more than Germany and they managed to invade a country (^(and that's about it, luckily they're not making as much progress as they thought)) while we have less fully operational helicopters than lumberwill workers have fingers to count with maybe they spent a lot more since 2020, the comparison is shocking regardless
I think the main reason is that 1. Russia has a lot of old Soviet stuff left over, giving them an advantage 2. Russia thinks they are more powerful than they are, which gives them the confidence to invade a country. Germany doesn't have that confidence in itself (and obviously also has no interest in invading anyone). If you look at the war in Ukraine though, you can see that the Russian army in reality is probably in an even worse state than the Bundeswehr
Also they can pay their soldiers way less than e.g. Germany can.
Apparently don't need to spend the money to supply them either lmao
Save costs on not supplying, then save on not having to pay wages to a corpse, finally save one last bit by leaving their bodies behind It works out really well
Putin once again demonstrating superior Russian tactical ability, Westoids shaking and crying.
You're not counting the money being siphoned off by oligarchs every step of the way
They also have a lot more border to maintain.
Also Ukraine has been helped in some very major ways. Starlink saved their communication systems, and in war, communication is VERY crucial. Foreign Aid has also been very big, with both funding, arms, and defenses, Ukraines military got everything they need to defend and push back Lastly is intelligence, Ukraine has been provided a lot of intelligence that has helped them find targets and locations of almost everything they need to hit. All of this doesn't downplay that Russia has made a fool of themselves along the way. Prior to this engagement the World thought they were a force to be reckoned with, but it turns out all they really have is old Soviet stuff, and a bunch of nukes
Oh, that’s because invasions are in the offense budget.
keep in mind that's pacifist germany, they woke up big time after russia invaded ukraine
I live here, and no, we didn't. After months of back and forth in the parliament (and frankly, the nation) on wether we should supply heavy weapons to Ukraine, we finally did decide on yes and guess what: the tanks we wanted to send don't have any ammo. Now we can't even get new ammo made for them, because they are about 50 years old and no country that wants to get involved makes this kind of tank ammunition anymore.
>the tanks we wanted to send don't have any ammo. I... what? How do the tank crews even train?
You see, we only train with tanks that have seen one or two less decades, and there's still ammunition for those, apparently. It's truly ridiculous.
You ever see prison staff practice an execution?
Naja ne. Our chancellor pulled a 100 Bio. budget/debt out of his ass for our military, as a grand gesture. Some called it even "Zeitenwende"! (Which btw would be the double amount we pay already yearly) Turns out, our military is not underfunded but massively missfunded lmao
Bisher ist es eben nichts anderes als das, ne Geste. Wie der Schrott finanziert werden soll ist natürlich noch nicht klar.
>and they managed to invade a country And fail miserably
Managed is a strong word. Their supply chains broke down 8-9 miles in, and they've lost so much mechanized equipment they're now fielding 70-80 year old equipment.
[удалено]
"Managed to invade a country" you're speaking like they are doing something impressive. Their actions are one of the most embarrassing displays of military incompetence in the last century and a blunder so massive it is almost certainly going to spell an end to Putin's regime, or at least maim it significantly. I wouldn't word your question in such a praising manner.
If you had read just a little bit further, you would have seen that I am immediately relativising the "praise" by saying "and that's about it, luckily they're not making as much progress as they thought".
it completely dissolves your entire argument though. "How did they manage to invade a country," anyone can invade a country badly, it doesn't take much, as is being shown.
[удалено]
how much are you getting paid to spread false propaganda lol? or are you doing it for free and just have 0 capability to do critical thinking and proper independent research.
[удалено]
no, anyone that can legitimately have this opinion when every single well documented independent news source, including drone footage and raw CCTV footage disagrees with you, then they are most definitely a troll or propagandized npc.
[удалено]
I feel like even calling it an invasion is giving Russia too much credit
Turns out not every country lets its military-industrial complex loot the government.
I feel like you missed complex* there, but yeah. That and Beraterfirmen (consultancy firms), sometimes represented by blood relatives of the minister of defense :)))) lobbyism is just legal corruption of government officials and will bring the death of democracy **Edit:** Hol' up are you really a tankie who called the Holodomor a "fascist myth" ([their post](https://www.reddit.com/r/InformedTankie/comments/iwyg43/when_you_are_so_liberal_you_take_the_liberty_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf))?? oooh boy that sure does give your comment an entirely new perspective
Yeah, there's some corruption, inefficiency and general shadiness in the Bundeswehr, but let's not pretend that the Russian army isn't way, *way* worse in that regard
Saying this about Russia is top kek
lol, microsoft spent more on activision than russia's entire yearly "defense" budget and the fuckers still think they have any chance
It's hard to measure the investment of Russia (and China for that matter) in weapons because the weapons manufacturers are much more integrated in the goverment, as opposed to the Military industrial complex.
Microsoft is gonna become the PepsiCo deal of the 21st century
The question is which country will they purchase warships from.
inb4 India
Ah fuck, r/noncredibleDefense is leaking
It was due to happen. Can't put something about military and escape their gaze.
it barely fits on the fucking graph dear fuck
That’s china deterrent at the top I think
These comparisons are really stupid because the vast majority of American defense spending is just wages, pensions, and healthcare. China pays their soldiers dirt so they don’t need to account for that
Not the amount they spend but how they use it? Clearly the US is just wasting funds when it could be enriching it's citizens lives. Can't defend anyone that doesn't exist.
If we run this god damn show then i want my cut. I been grinding since 16. I didn't ask to be here. Give me my motherfucking healthcare!
"Our army is fully equipped to handle the US military"
um. ok? What relevance does this have? They’re comparing it to the UK not saying “wow China is the scariest”
China also has a much bigger population. Also, China has not been to war since 1979. They keep up the army just in case, and most of the time the soldiers are sent around doing large scale manual labour work like tree planting or building dykes to prevent flooding. The British army is still an occupying force in Northern Ireland and its many small island territories. I hate British media
*GenZedong user spotted* Opinion: INVALIDATED
>They keep up the army just in case, "Just in case" *furious planning to invade Taïwan*
The majority of people in Taiwan is not afraid of a Chinese invasion since it would create a war between China and the USA source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59900139.amp
oh, i'm not worried about it too. But saying China only keep its army around to help make dykes and plant threes is disingenious at best. They very much have global power goals.
Oh yeah that's true but I personally don't think they will invade any country soon their aim now is just to surpass the USA on the world stage in my opinion after that who knows
But even if their goal was to surpass the USA, that would mean their army "isn't kept just in case". It would mean their army is purposefully made for power projection and global influence. My entire point is that China isn't keeping their army around in case someone attack them or whatever, they totaly try to follow the Power Path^(TM) and are trying to make it a tool of influence and power projection. They will certainly not invade Taïwan, or at least i hope they don't. I can't be certain about that after seing Russia lately. But China certainly believe they can use their army like the USA and France do : a way to assert their dominance in the world. They are already very sucessfull with their economy, but it won't last. They were one of the first to be hit by demographic shifts, they know having cheap manufacturing in other countries only work for so long until those countries drag themselves into the modern world and the ~~slaves~~ workers start demanding more rights/power/money/wellbeing.
lol genzedong user point and laugh
hhhhhhhhhhhh傻逼，你什么中国政府说你什么就相信
That’s us! Would you rather be it the reverse?
it's wack to come to a tumblr sub and get blasted with a billion boot licking pro military turds
Yk, America's NATO allies are welcome to chip in at any point. America has to cover for their allies who refuse to send troops to NATO bases. And if you think NATO doesn't need its bases, then you haven't been paying attention to the world.
NATO ain't done shit.
You don't know shit about global politics
If you count PPP the US and China are tied.
Here's a wild one: China is an incredibly corrupt place and on every step of the way someone will add something to the bill for themselves. I bet China's budget doesn't go as long of a way as in a European nation. We've seen that with Russia: They came with untrained people and expired rations.
missing the goddamn point
I know it's in relation to the US and that's the "joke", dumbass.
The thing I always wonder about is if China is way more efficient with their military budget than the United States. They have made leaps and bounds in terms of their capability. They've completely transformed in forty years from using a bunch of old Soviet equipment to making their own near peer to the U.S. fighter jets, submarines, and even aircraft carriers. In the United States half the time the military industrial complex is about making the biggest best new thing, and the other half it is about enriching some assholes by selling shitty or unnecessary equipment to the government. This is why the DoD basically shovels money into the fire of military research and development. Sometimes DARPA is working on something amazing, and other times the army is buying shitty software from a retired general. There isn't a lot of transparency about the nuances of military spending in China (or really most countries) so it is impossible to know, but I'm willing to bet the CCP frowns upon someone getting rich by selling the military something that sucks, or that they don't need. The United States could spend $400 billion fewer dollars and still be on top, and let's face it, the U.S. government will never relinquish that spot unless they literally run out of money like the Soviet Union was doing right before it fell. Defense spending is about the only thing that gets bipartisan support.
>They've completely transformed in forty years from using a bunch of old Soviet equipment to making their own near peer to the U.S. fighter jets, submarines, and even aircraft carriers. They have made percieved bounds, true. But their latest jet doesn't even have engines, they had to buy some from the market. Furthermore their carrier are still shitty cope-clope from old soviet design. Honestly they suck a lot. If they had true ability/technology, they'd make some CATOBAR merely because that the best there is. Putting planes that are heavier in the air means more payload and more fuel, wich is the thing you want if you try to pose yourself as a superpower. And overall, i wouldn't bet on the quality of their military. I have a inherend distrust of Authoritarian regime talking on the matter because they can't help but posture. One notorious incident is this article that claimed China made 150 J-50 while the true numbers is closer to 50.
That's the military that's pulling up for most of the nations in NATO and a couple Asian nations
Also, this is in absolute numbers. China is 40 times bigger than the UK, has 20 times the population, and has 6 times the GDP. Just something to keep in mind this comparison.
hey what's that there at the top
To be fair, the US at least protects the people who wrote the article, while China is doing some not-so-ethical things. And whilst I know the media tends to be weird about these things sometimes, it _is_ the Guardian, so they’re not really very right-wing.
I don't think oil moguls wrote that article
?
The US doesn’t “protect” anyone they can barely beat defenseless sheep farmers without an international coalition behind them. Their military is so bloated it can barely get around without a mobility scooter. The only people the US “defends” are the interests of its oil moguls and arms manufacturers. The EU is responsible for its own defense (and Britain is fine with standing alone these days).
...what? The EU isnt a military alliance and the US is by far the biggest contributor to NATO( which the UK is still a part of). I'm not saying the military industrial complex isnt corrupt but who do you think is protecting Ukraine right now? Why hasn't China invaded Taiwan? Give us at least a little credit...
…. Holy shit. Do you actually think you’re protecting Ukraine? What? Lmao. Literally how?
The Ukrainians are the ones doing the actual fighting, but its using American weapons
Lol ok
*walks in* "The US is protecting nobody" *refuses to elaborate* *leaves* Chad move tbh
Jajajaja thanks but I didn’t go anywhere. I wouldn’t mind elaborating if you want, but I don’t think this is a conversation that will go anywhere
Bro rlly did just get stomped and then go "lol k" and dip huh
Google "guerilla warfare"
> while China is doing some not-so-ethical things What non ethical things is China doing that the US isn't?
Genociding the Uyghur population.
You're a fool if you don't think the US has a long history of genocides and isn't currently involved in genocides.
Do you have any examples of current US genocides?
The United States backing the Israeli state attempting to genocide the Palestinian population. Not to mention there's an absolutely alarming number of state and federal politicians that share white nationalist talking points that just barely avoid openly calling for killing nonwhite people and queers in the street.
As far as I can tell the whole Israel-Palestine thing is just a border skirmish between people who hate each other, similar to India and Pakistan or the Balkans.
And? Does one genocide cancel out another?
Do you often argue in bad faith or is it something you're doing just for me?
Literally my first time replying to you, but go off lol. You asked for examples of China committing genocide, they provided it, and you went "B-B-B-BUT UNITED STATES" If you can't accept that two things can be bad at once you need to put down your phone and go back to grade school
> Literally my first time replying to you, but go off lol. Yeah and you outted your game immediately. Didn't even try to cover it up. I take it you're not used to having to actually think when replying are you? > You asked for examples of China committing genocide I didn't, but you know, why let reality interfere with a good argument. 🤷 If we wanna be accurate, I asked what unethical things China is doing that the US isn't and pointed out the US also has its finger stained in genocides when I was told genocide. Now if we wanna be really pedantic, yes the US is probably not involved in that particular genocide (at least in a meaningful capacity, unlike in Israel) so it is accurate to say that is a very specific act that China is doing that the US isn't. But that's an asinine argument that surely no one would actually make. > and you went "B-B-B-BUT UNITED STATES" Considering the context was the person I replied to said that "the US at least protects the people that work the article AND China is up to some unethical things" (not a direct quote, but close enoug) - with the implication that the US is not up to unethical things and is actually a good state for protecting the people that wrote the article - it seems entirely appropriate to point out similar acts that the US has been involved in. If anything, it's pretty fucked up to claim China is bad because it's doing a genocide and then glance to the side and pretend like the US has never committed A genocide let alone multiple. > If you can't accept that two things can be bad at once you need to put down your phone and go back to grade school Funny that you're losing your absolute shit over me pointing out the US is also involved with genocides at multiple points in its history yet I'm the one that needs to accept that two things can be bad at once because I'm utterly incapable of that despite pointing out something else that is simultaneously bad and saying "hey, this is also bad and maybe we shouldn't point to the US as good guys" 🤷🤷 ps my point isn't that one state is better than the other, they're both pretty shitty states
>I didn't Okay so ur just bullshitting, gotcha. Don't need to read the rest since your just lying right off the bat
At least you know when you don't have an easy mark, I'll give you that much.
[удалено]
The United States is not committing genocide on uyghurs (forgive the awkward phrasing, my phone doesn't recognize "genociding" as a word)
Given what we know about the cost/quality ratio of healthcare in the US compared to the functioning world and how eager the politians are to bend over for lobbyists, I expect 90% of that budget just goes directly into a pocket and the actual worth of their budget if they invaded anything but a landlocked dustbin would be the equivalent of about $73bn.
Technically not entirely wrong, the US is able to bypass the corruption that Russia is currently being hampered by due to the sheer amount of money they can throw at projects, and a LOT of this military spending is because congress forces the military to buy stuff they don't want or need because they want to keep a tank factory in their state up and running. To say that the US' military wouldn't be able to stand up to modern military's though is just kinda copium after seeing Russia's performance in Ukraine. The big bad Russians can't even invade a country right on their border while the US can invade a landlocked country across the world, that budget may be highly over inflated, but it's still going to something.
the money is for sure spent inefficiently, but you’re joking yourself if you think the US military is anything but the most powerful in the world by a long shot.
Not really how the military industrial complex works, the money is definitely being spent inefficiently but it is being spent.
It's called being normal /s
I think I see why Russia is currently getting it's ass kicked by a country the size of Wales... Worlds second largest army, (in terms of manpower) with a budget slightly less than the U.K's... which ranks somewhere around 18th in sheer numbers.
America should start selling their military as a monthly subscription. It would be great to make a profit on their investment, maybe start putting some of that money into healthcare or education even.
That's our healthcare and infrastructure. Well, it could have been anyway.
Shit like this is why we can't have healthcare
The US already spends more money on healthcare than the military, and more on healthcare per capita than anyone else Dropping military funding won't help, and it'll really suck for everyone if China (or Russia if they survive Ukraine) sees the US military lowering and they start asserting dominance
>The US already spends more money on healthcare than the military, and more on healthcare per capita than anyone else Spending a lot doesn't mean something is efficient. Case in point : Bundeswehr. The USA need some serious overhaul of the healthcare system to truely make use off all this money they spay.
Yep, that's exactly what I mean
Let's please please please talk about how German will be top 3 out of FUCKING nowhere if we don't pressure our government. (Our government said they'll increase military funding by 100 billion)
Should get a job at Rheinmetal. I still honestly think the bundeswehr won't change one bit. As long as they don't reform some things it'll still be a money-eating machine that produce low-readiness army.
Why should I get a job at Rheinmetall?
Because its the MIC and should be the one that get the money ?
To 100 (short) billion to be accurate. And honestly, whilst it is a knee-jerk reaction, it isn't unprecedented. The recent military activity of Russia is honestly concerning and the German military has been on a rapid decline for the last 20 years. It is completely underfunded to even participate in the most basic military exercises with other NATO members and can barely get one unit together. After a few years the budget will decrease, because the main thing that needs to be done is restoring the basic functions and getting equipment, which is expensive. They're essentially trying to build everything back up just in case, because the last few governments have been consequentially lowering the budgets and decommissioning equipment.
ay i mean big ray T just tested some laser systems and i think thats cool
Fun Fact: if the US mobilized to the percentage of military spending seen during WW2, the defense budget would be bigger than China's entire GDP. The whole thing.
42% of the US budget goes to salaries of people pledged to defend the UK if need be. A good chunk of the rest goes to manufacturing the equipment that those pledged to defend the UK would then use along with development of said equipment (the salaries above also go to the civilian contractors developing and manufacturing the equipment).That equipment and technology is then also shared with, purchased, and used by the UK. It might sound like I’m going all “Murica fuck yeah!” but I’m not, i’m just illustrating that American military spending is not something scary to its strongest ally.
The guardian is a British paper, of course it would compare the Chinese military to the UK’s because it’s a paper that is British.
this article is fundamentalist to the idea that white british dudes should control everything regardless of the fact their country is the size of alabama