Would you please stop using HN for political and national battle? You've been doing it a lot, and it's not what this site is for. As such discussions get more predictable (such as when people dump boilerplate political links into comment threads), they get both less interesting and more flame-prone, a double whammy of destruction for what we care about here.
Can you elaborate more on why China's increasing military budget is a disturbing sign to you?
China spends a mere 1.9% of its GDP in 2016 and that number is smaller than from Vietnam, Korea, India even Singapore [0]. To me China is only trying catching up its neighbors.
BTW Japan's PM has just submitted his 2018 Military Budget and if approved would be the 6th "straight annual increase" [1].
This is a sign that Xi Jinping wants to become a dictator, and it concerns other countries if a giant country like China with a massive military is controlled by a dictator with unlimited power. China has every right to have a large military to defend itself, but a dictator might use the military to be aggressive to other countries.
China's GDP is several times bigger[1] than Vietnam, Korea, India, and Singapore, so spending a smaller percentage is still a larger absolute amount. Even India, the closest competitor that you listed is only 1/5 as big by GDP, and in absolute terms has a smaller military.
China has always been ruled by dynasties. I don't see any specific reason why it should change under Xi. It is a wet dream of USA to bring instability to China to weaken rising dragon.
What make you think that being under monarchy Europe would yield different result? China is a great example of being a communist state where people's life is getting better and better. Political stability is a key to economic growth.
China is only growing economically to the extent that it's relaxed its socialist, authoritarian policies. As soon as it reasserts them, all that growth will go away. The fact that people's lives are improving is not sufficient evidence that the government is benevolent.
There is only one thing that reliably predicts human behavior: incentives. The incentives of the communist party are much more weakly aligned with the welfare of their people than those in democratic countries. It's as simple as that.
China is a way older than Europe. After all this damage Europe did to China(think Opium wars) i am happy to see China found its OWN way to success. And being one of the greatest economy in the world, why would it even listen to the West?
The 1.9% figure you're quoting, is almost universally regarded to be an undercount, aka a lie. At best their actual military spending figures are very fuzzy.
"The Chinese, for example, do not count their research-and-development expenditures, the considerable amount they pay for foreign military purchases, the huge subsidies for their defense industry (which is composed mostly of enterprises owned by the state), or their spending on the Chinese coast guard despite many of their “maritime law enforcement” ships being in effect naval vessels"
In the Foreign Policy article you are quoting: "Although China’s official 2012 defense budget is $106 billion, ...the Pentagon places China’s total military spending at somewhere between $120 and $180 billion."
So we take the number in the middle ($150 billion) and assume it's always a 50% undercut (extremely inaccurate estimate), this will put China's 2016 budget to 1.92%*1.5=2.88%, still lower than Singapore's.
Are you seriously comparing Singapore's relative military spending to China's? There's got to be a point where % mean nothing, and this is definitely it.
Singapore could spend it's whole GDP on the military and China can still wipe it off the face of the Earth :/
It is disturbing because China did not hesitate to kill 10000 of their own people in 1989 on a shoestring budget, and faced no consequence. Who knows what they would do to Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc.
I highly doubt China will start a war, its not financially positive, unless they wanted to just expend some of their excess population.
I rather think domination via trade, investment, manufacturing and economical means is more plausible because thats what they're doing right now and they have more resources and capabilities to do more.
As well, its never good to fight a land war in Asia, korea, afghanistan, vietnam, cambodia and others has demonstrated that, as from a military perspective, you would be losing lives trying to police an area where locals have a more-than-significant population advantage over you.
Modern military tactics are no longer invade via land forces with air as support but rather spread fake news via social media and watch for signs of weakness in cyber structures.
If we are on the subject of what crimes against humanity should prevent a country getting what kind of weapon, Asia-raping Japan is on the brink of acquiring nukes according to some comments below, do you find that disturbing?
Sorry for the whataboutism but I think how each country is perceived when spending money on military is worth discussing.
Yes. But Japan has been mostly, um, "inert" and peaceful since WW2. China's history since WW2, to this day, has been one of one atrocity after another. Things seem to be getting worse with Winnie the Pooh declaring him eternal president.
Also, if Japan was Asia raping in WW2, China is China-raping now.
Japan is still bound by article 9 of it's constitution but let us not pretend that they haven't been trying to get rid of that article or sent their defense force to play war in the middle east "strictly for defensive purposes".
That being said; between the two, China today is more like Japan during WWII than Japan today is.
>but let us not pretend that they haven't been trying to get rid of that article or sent their defense force to play war in the middle east "strictly for defensive purposes".
The PM and his party (the LDP) in coalition with the Komeito party have been trying to push that for years, without success. Mostly because the Japanese people don't seem to support it.
And to be fair, revising Article 9 and not going on a romp through the Middle East is also an option. I can see the rationale for doing so, besides right-wing nationalism on Japan's part.
See other articles cited in the parent comment regarding human rights abuses and censorship for reasons as to why any military increase in China is not good.
Personally, the big thing I find scary about him is that he abolished term limits for himself. Oh, yeah, and he enshrined his thinking in the constitution.
Why should length of rule be such a large part of my opinion of him? Well, let's pick a different leader. Suppose Trump wanted to change the US Constitution so that he could remain president for an unlimited time. Would that set off alarm bells for you? It would for me.
Why would it set off alarm bells? Because that leader thinks that he needs more time in office than the rules allow, and is willing to alter the rules to do what he wants.
Also, why does he want it? One option is that he thinks that the country needs his leadership, his in particular - nobody else can do it, it has to be him. Such people have an inflated view of their own importance and competence, and a diminished sense of others' importance and competence. That often doesn't end well - the leader thinks they have no need to listed to anyone else.
The other option for "why do they think they need it" is worse - they just want the power, and are willing to remove all obstacles to get and keep it. The point of their power is to keep their power, not what is good for the country. That usually works out badly for the country.
What are you talking about? The most aggressive country since WW2 has been a representative democracy with 8 year term limits. And before 1900, aside from Ancient Greece and Rome, there's basically no examples of people with term limits.
> BTW Japan's PM has just submitted his 2018 Military Budget and if approved would be the 6th "straight annual increase"
China's 2016 GDP was 11.2 Trillion USD and their Military budget was 1.9% or 212 Billion USD.
Japan's 2016 GDP was 4.9 Trillion USD and their Military budget was 0.9% or 44 Billion USD.
Japan spends 20% of what China does.
Part of Japan's military spending goes directly towards maintaining US Military Bases in Japan. Starting in 2019 they won't pay to maintain US bases AND their budget will be limited to 0.8% of GDP. (See your own article for reference)
Let's also not forget that Japanese constitution currently forbids them from using their military to settle international disputes.[0] In other words Japan can't attack or declare war on anyone and their military can only be used for defensive purposes.
> Can you elaborate more on why China's increasing military budget is a disturbing sign to you?
China is propping up North Korea[1] who launches ICBMs over Japan for fun.[2]
China and Russia are holding naval military exercises in Japan's backyard.[3]
China has been building up it's Navy.
China has become increasingly aggressive in territorial disputes with others.
If china invades taiwan in will be a sign that China believes US leadership to be weak, and the world would follow that lead depending on the us response.
If they successfully coax a response, we hurt our economic ties, if they dont, they get facevalue gains and reduce us foreign credibility.
Taiwan is a first world democracy that has at least existed with its own distinct government for seventy years. A Chinese military invasion would be unprecedented in the history of the world since WWII. I wonder what such a war would signify for the postwar order.
A very sudden decline in Chinese manufacturing, that's what. With such a bold action, many if not most US and EU businesses will pull out of China, this would be no joking matter. Still not sure there would be a WW3 over Taiwan or any other small country that is not is some sort of bigger union.
Most recent invasions by the great powers have been against pariah states (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) or somewhat diplomatically isolated countries that are shaky (Georgia, Ukraine, Syria). Taiwan might not have much diplomatic recognition, but it's very much economically integrated into the global economy. It's a stable democracy with one of the highest living standards. Militarily challenging the existence of such a state- that would indicate the world is slipping back into a pre-Potsdam world, where advanced nations could fight each other again.
Granted, Taiwan is much militarily weaker than China, a little similar to the Ukraine-Russian relationship, but it's also a much more stable and richer state. I think what could be comparable is if Russia really was to threaten the Baltic nations.
> A very sudden decline in Chinese manufacturing, that's what. With such a bold action, many if not most US and EU businesses will pull out of China, this would be no joking matter.
Could that be a policy plus for China? IIRC, they have wanted to reduce their export-dependence for some time, though I'm sure that they'd prefer to accomplish it is a more gradual and controlled way.
One of the strategies is to keep Taiwan itself armed. Civilians like us can't know this, but it has been hypothesized that one of the levers being used on China with regard to North Korea's development of nuclear weapons is explaining to them that if North Korea goes nuclear, they can expect Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and who knows who else to go nuclear, either via local development of the weaponry or via assisted development from the US, if not outright turning weapons over.
After all, one imagines that if they really put their mind to it, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea could all go nuclear in a period measured in small single-digit months. They really aren't that hard [1]. If, indeed, they aren't already effectively nuclear. (We'd probably know if they'd ever tested a weapon. We wouldn't necessarily know if they'd actually built one. If I were them, I totally would have.)
One of the interesting aspects of the whole Inevitable Rise of China narrative storyline is that it has been predicated on their continuing to develop and primarily use soft power. I tend to agree if they focused on that, they have many avenues available for major growth, if not outright exceeding the US in power, certainly by the end of the 21st century. The equations for all of that have to be reconsidered from scratch if they become a dictatorship, become subject to the whims of a single man, and decide to primarily pursue hard power. If they become outright aggressively belligerent, they are surrounded by countries powerful enough to at least put a dent in their ambitions in Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and India, all of whom are already generally US allies and would be chased into the US's arms fully by a belligerent China. China is not currently powerful enough to take on that coalition, nor is it clear to me where they would get allies for that push. (It seems unlikely that the EU would full-throatedly throw in their lot with China. Russia, other than being nuclear, isn't really a strong enough military or economic power against that sort of coalition to be the deciding factor.) Furthermore, China's internal power is IMHO more delicate than may meet the eye; if China devotes more resources into hard power internally and the middle class starts to fade, internal social unrest is going to be a major problem. Even if China manages to suppress its most overt expressions, unrest still manifests itself in many little ways.
The best move for China is slow and steady, to win the race. But if one man decides that's not fast enough, well, a lot of people could end up dying for that decision and my guess is China would still not come out on top.
> After all, one imagines that if they really put their mind to it, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea could all go nuclear in a period measured in small single-digit months
> While there are currently no known plans in Japan to produce nuclear weapons, it has been argued Japan has the technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within one year if necessary, and many analysts consider it a de facto nuclear state for this reason...
> Japan has also developed the M-V three-stage solid-fuel rocket, somewhat similar in design to the U.S. LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM, giving it a missile technology base. It now has an easier-to-launch second generation solid-fuel rocket, Epsilon. Japan has experience in re-entry vehicle technology...
> In 2011, former Minister of Defense Shigeru Ishiba explicitly backed the idea of Japan maintaining the capability of nuclear latency: "I don't think Japan needs to possess nuclear weapons, but it's important to maintain our commercial reactors because it would allow us to produce a nuclear warhead in a short amount of time ... It's a tacit nuclear deterrent"
I would definitely expect Japan to have completely developed plans for a nuclear weapons program, with contingencies for getting it online in the shortest amount of time possible.
I would not expect them to have actually created a device, unless they are keeping deep under the stadium somewhere below the Akira project.
Having a card up your sleeve is still valuable, even if nobody knows it is there, because it means if you have to pull it out all of a sudden, it's there. Taiwan would be my A#1 pick for "country most likely to secretly have nuclear weapons" because while everyone around China has reason to be nervous at one level or another, Taiwan's clearly got the best one.
"The world" as a whole is also a bit jumpy about nuclear weapons, so pulling the card out early isn't free. If for the sake of argument Taiwan does have some prototypes lying around, they must have judged the risk of a reveal greater than the reward. But that can change swiftly.
One of the questions I find most interesting, from my civilian and total outsider position, is: How developed are the world's intelligence agencies? How good are countries at successfully keeping things secret from each other? Is it theoretically possible for Taiwan to have secretly developed a prototype bomb without China covertly knowing about it? (This is an especially interesting question in that for structural reasons, Taiwan and China have means to spy on each other relatively easily.) Is it in fact the case that everybody basically knows everything about everybody, or are there many, many successfully kept secrets? What are the probabilities of discovery? What's the appetite for risk of discovery within the relevant governments? I expect from my current position that it is simply impossible to get solid answers to these questions. It also seems to me that while the world does not care for countries overtly advertising they have a bomb, the game theory for covertly making it known to certain of your enemies that you have the bomb may be quite different.
The goal is deterrence, but deterrence doesn't work if you don't have a credible threat, which means that you have to have the credible threat, and a sufficiently insane opponent may call you on it. It's the reason why China going to a dictatorship is scary... the details of the dictatorship are irrelevant, the mere fact that one man will be in charge of the military of China is intrinsically scary. This is one place where the general bias towards inaction and other problems of a committee are advantageous; history shows that an individual is much likelier to do something really stupid for really stupid reasons than any government that is run by many people, even if there is a clear leader. A committee may fail to exploit many opportunities and may in various ways run their country into the ground, or they may even engage in misguided military adventures, but they never really rise to the level of outright evil and stupidity that an individual can muster up.
For instance, if you've got a spare hour to listen, you could do worse than this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdM3ID4m38U Which contains numerous examples of Napoleon doing stupid and evil things that cost thousands of lives and burned massive piles of reputation just to benefit himself. If you do watch that video, can you imagine a world in which that Napoleon has nukes? Or, can you imagine a world in which he has them, but doesn't use them? I can't.
So, alas, no, I can't promise that some of the really stupid wargame outcomes aren't on the table now. China could previously be modeled as reasonably rational, but that's rapidly going "poof", and yeah, that means some seriously bad outcomes are on the table, and the mere fact that they are seriously ugly doesn't take them off the table.
> What's the point of having nuclear weapons and not telling everyone?
The point is so that:
(1) You can maintain the highest ground in proliferation discussions focussed on rivals, and
(2) Reveal your own weapons quickly if the geopolitical situation shifts (either as deterrence or, should the situation shift too quickly for that, direct use to blunt an existential threat.)
> The entire point of nuclear weapons is to deter attacks.
No, it's (as with any weapon) to provide the capacity to destroy the enemy if needed.
Like any weapon, this capacity can be publicized to deter attacks, but that is not the sole purpose of the weapon, and it can't be, because deterrence cannot work if it is perceived as the sole purpose of a weapon.
> What's the point of having nuclear weapons and not telling everyone? The entire point of nuclear weapons is to deter attacks.
The ambiguity is still a valuable deterrent, and avoids the diplomatic cost of violating the NPT in peacetime, etc. That cost would doubtlessly be less if the violator was presently facing an existential threat.
IIRC, Israel follows this strategy. Everyone knows they have nukes but they've never confirmed it.
Why would you tell them, until such a time that you need to tell them? They have strong deterrent value, but there is no need to let others know until such a time as the deterrent value is needed.
Japan getting the bomb is a tricky question because post war Japanese culture has been ingrained to be very anti-war and they oppose atomic weaponry for obvious historical reasons.
Nobody is going to start a global nuclear war over Taiwan. The country is far too close to mainland China for the US to perpetually stand-off China from taking the island in the case of war. It's futile almost no matter the strength gap between the US and China. China could have successfully taken Taiwan 15 years ago for the same reason, despite there being a huge military gap back then.
There's no scenario where China doesn't get Taiwan, unfortunately for the people there. The only question is what that's going to look like. The rest of the world will do nothing about it, other than wave their hands around frantically. When it happens (during Xi's lifetime), it's going to set a particularly terrible precedent that will encourage Russia to do more of the same in eastern Europe. If China then decides Mongolia too is part of greater China, who can really stop that? Nobody.
It has to do with global nuclear war because saying that one will not break out over 'x' ignores the fact that there's historical evidence for unimaginable carnage being triggered from seemingly minor events. Many scenarios put forward by military thinkers on what might trigger a nuclear war involve escalation – it's not limited to a country deciding to just fire off some rockets.
There's no scenario where China doesn't get Taiwan, unfortunately for the people there.
People have been saying that for 69 years. I'm not saying it's a disturbing possibility, or that people shouldn't be preparing for it. But it's not as likely as you seem to think.
There's no comparison to the Crimea situation. Crimea was overwhelmingly pro-Russian, and had a strong independence streak (see: the sovereignty referendum of 1994). An amphibious invasion against a largely hostile population is an entirely different matter, and would not be pretty, even for a large power like China. There's also the small matter of the US navy and Air Force.
I also don't think the US (or Japan) are keen on moving the focus of Chinas expansion from Taiwan to the Senkakus, which is what would happen next.
There's a lot of factors at play, it's a larger issue than just comparing two mismatched militaries.
> When it happens (during Xi's lifetime), it's going to set a particularly terrible precedent that will encourage Russia to do more of the same in eastern Europe.
It may provide a distraction for further Russian expansion, but Russia clearly doesn't need any new foreign precedent to justify invading it's neighbors.
> If China then decides Mongolia too is part of greater China, who can really stop that? Nobody.
China taking Taiwan might not start a major power war (though given the history of such wars, I wouldn't dismiss it as easily as you do), but Mongolia is much more likely to (with Russia as the opposing major power.)
> but Mongolia is much more likely to (with Russia as the opposing major power.)
Russia gets expansion in Europe. China gets expansion in Asia. They agree to try to stay out of each others way. It certainly wouldn't be unusual, historically speaking, for very powerful authoritarian regimes to reach agreement on annexations of territory.
...or to break those agreements. I imagine the memory of Operation Barbarossa hasn't faded much in Russia. It's hard to imagine them trusting China to move their military into a buffer state without moving further.
It might be a question of whether it matters, given the vast territory they already share (which if I'm not mistaken is already nearly the length of the Russia-Mongolia border).
Granted, for a long time now Russia has harbored paranoia about their vast empty East, and that China might one day want to push into it. Russia is depopulating and China is overflowing with people. The comedy of the situation, is Russia having used the ethnic Russian setup premise to seize territory in Ukraine - China could use the same argument in various territories in Eastern Russia.
That said, I don't see Russia being willing to fight over Mongolia. China is already far too powerful and economically capable for them to do that. Russia could never come close to managing to hold off China in Mongolia, I think they know that. And I don't think Russia would be willing to go nuclear over Mongolia, which is what it would take to stop China if they wanted to annex the country.
Is it disturbing from a US POV, or generally speaking? Because if I recall correctly, the US military spending has gone up significantly as well, also it's projected to rise even further in the future.
On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget? Or does it only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?
> On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget?
Because Russia: (1) has ICBMs, which makes it a strategic global threat, even though they can't directly control territory that way, (2) because Russia has a large and capable conventional military than makes it a strong regional power threatening US interests and allies (it can't challenge the US on global force projection, which is the real driver of US military cost.)
> Or does it only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?
Soldier and suppliers being paid less is a factor, too, but the big factor in the fundamental asymmetry between what is necessary to be a regional power and what is necessary to be able to respond to threats by regional powers everywhere in the world.
And Russia can apparently influence world opinions and politics to a major unknown degree. Cyber security tends to get the short end of the budget stick, but Russians seem to excel at it.
I read an article that says that Russia would be the country that benefits the most from US tariffs on import goods, because the EU must retaliate and therefore is much more likely to lift the sanctions of, of Russia.
Didn't want to believe it that the US government could be under Russian influence, but this move could very well prove that to some degree, or it just so happens that Trumps way of doing this aligns perfectly with their interest. On other note, people might just be reading into it too much, as it could all just be a move to, gain popularity in the US, thinking short term rather than long term.
EDIT: also recently watched a youtube video from a Google employee that says that the US government, just can't compete with big corporations for the talent pool, because government wages are limited, so yeah that certainly could be a issue for you guys.
> On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget?
Total speculation: the US may spend more on R&D to develop unproven ideas into functional systems (with a lot of failure and trial and error). Then Russia can follows those now-proven development paths without needing to spend nearly as much on dead ends or original research.
It doesn't just disturb the US, but every country surrounding China that is dominated by the strongest power in the region. The weaker countries have no choice but to accept unfavorable trade deals, give up ocean territory away from what is the accepted as international convention, etc.
China is big. China being ran by a dictator becomes a big bully.
Just because the US does it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it any less concerning for the other countries in the region. Moral relativism isn't a good defense.
It's a lot worse than that. The US has been a superpower for ~75 years. In that time, the US hasn't been annexing territory in Latin America (and yes, the US is guilty of repeatedly meddling in the affairs of nations in Latin America, and it deserves all the flack it gets for it).
The Monroe Doctrine for example has never included a drive to conquer Latin America and annex it. That doctrine is about driving out European colonialism. The territorial integrity of countries in Latin America has been well served by that shield. If you're Venezuela and your entire nation has collapsed (which it has), you don't have to fear someone conquering you due to extreme weakness and annexing you: the US would never allow that and everyone knows it. Historically, at nearly any other time or place, Venezuela would get invaded and conquered while they're so extraordinarily weak (they have the largest oil reserves on earth after all).
If the US were to behave like China is already (much less what might come next), the US would be threatening to annex Toronto and Vancouver, along with Baja Mexico and the entire Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.
We don't have to wait for bad behavior out of China. They just used their military to steal territory about four times the size of Texas from their neighbors.
Not the best examples. The US entertained annexing Canada and did annex large swathes of Mexico (not in the last 75 years, true, if you want to arbitrarily draw the line there). China has plenty of stable agreed borders with weak and troubled neighbors. You have your rose colored views but they are somewhat laughable.
> The Monroe Doctrine was a United States policy of opposing European colonialism in the Americas beginning in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to take control of any independent state in North or South America would be viewed as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States." .... The Doctrine was issued on December 2, 1823 at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved, or were at the point of gaining, independence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires.
One of the proclaimed reasons for which Japan invaded Asia in the Second World War was to oppose European nations (Japan included Russia and the US in this) colonizing Asia. I am sure to Japan that didn't (and if you probe Japanese deeply, still doesn't) sound very bully-like. Yet, we know what happened.
Let's not beat around the bush. This is a rising country's way of saying, I pwn my backyard (so you can't pwn it) and I will use my might to defend it. Of course the one saying that doesn't sound like a bully to himself.
> One of the proclaimed reasons for which Japan invaded Asia in the Second World War was to oppose European nations
Boy, what a false equivalence.
More from Wikipedia:
> The reaction in Latin America to the Monroe Doctrine was generally favorable but in some occasions suspicious. John Crow, author of The Epic of Latin America, states, "Simón Bolívar himself, still in the midst of his last campaign against the Spaniards, Santander in Colombia, Rivadavia in Argentina, Victoria in Mexico—leaders of the emancipation movement everywhere—received Monroe's words with sincerest gratitude".
This is an important point. The Monroe Doctrine wasn't a pretext to invasion and domination, it was actually assistance against those things. The people protected by it welcomed it.
Fast forward to the present day: Vietnam just hosted a US aircraft carrier, in a very symbolic move. It's not looking for China's help to drive the US out. China is in fact upping the ante in territorial disputes with its neighbors. China looks like a lot more like Japan in the 1930s than the US in the 1830s.
I made no recommendation about doing what others do, just pointing out some facts, why did everyone trip out defensively? Maybe it's the guilty conscience speaking.
And it is guilty conscience because you know that those problematic actions netted the aggressor (the most successful ones at any rate) plenty of benefits that many people still enjoy to this day.
I don't think the world should go down this road, and there are such things as international norms. That's why when one country ignores them continually and also gains from doing so, it becomes very disadvantageous to refrain and tempting to emulate. In that regard it absolutely matters to talk about the fact that "the US did it" and still does in a another way. Same goes for China or Russia.
It's a concern because anything that challenges absolute dominance of the US-led order is considered destabilizing and threatening, but there is an asterisk, as in, "by whom"?
If you happen to benefit or be happy with the US-led order, say an ally or vassal (military, economic, or just ideological), then you will feel the same way, naturally. If you are not, you are not so concerned.
A couple of friends of mine worked as hardware engineers in Russian military (or, to be exact, some subsidiary). They later moved on to Intel and Nvidia, and overall you can consider them quite capable CPU engineers (I never got the hang of what exactly they were doing, and a lot of it was under NDA).
While working there, they got less than $10k annually. If they would be able to get H1B, it's my understanding they'd get at least $100k.
While a lot of folks move to commercial sector and other countries, there a lot of people staying there, despite low salaries. Doing essentially the same job that their counterparts in US are doing, quite often for 10 times less money.
Expenses are also lower, right? Basics like housing, food, utilities. Even in the west few actually need the bloated budgets they say they do. "Oh I can't live on 60K/year!". Give me a break.
Depends on the quality of life you're aiming at. Rent is certainly cheaper than in SF, NY and London, but isn't that far off from other american and european cities. Still, you can't compare even rents easily, because while european and american renters usually talk about one-bedroom apartments and sometimes don't even mention a common room, here apartments are measured in rooms (not bedrooms) and in my experience are usually smaller. Personally, I pay about $1k for one-room apartment, but it's 15 minutes walking distance from the office, in a very nice neighborhood, furniture and a view; typical rate would be $500 per month or so.
The majority of US military spending is on soldiers and things related to soldiers (VA care, housing, retirement, education, etc). Most people think the US is spending all of that money on hardware, when that's not the case.
Incomes and general costs related to soldiers in Russia are even lower proportionally compared to the ratio of the per capita output gap between the US and Russia. Russia doesn't take very good care of their soldiers in most regards. If you divert a higher share of your military spending to R&D and hardware, as opposed to soldiers, you could close the gap some (and the US wastes plenty of money on unnecessary things; so if Russia is more careful about that, and chooses to focus more on what they can really afford to make a dent in, they can further close the gap).
>On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget? Or does it only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?
Never underestimate the sheer waste and incompetence that the US Government is capable of achieving. My general model is that we get about ten cents in value for every dollar spent. So, all Russia needs to do is break even, and they would achieve close to military might of the US.
I don't know what 100% efficiency means. You italicized it, so it must mean something to you. But I was talking about return on investment. The US loses 90% of the money it invests, whereas, for example, companies like Boeing make money with their investments. So, all Russia would need to do it not lose money they invest. That's not what 100% efficiency means to me, but it's a very achievable goal.
Vietnam just had to expend a large amount of effort to placate and reassure China, so the US could dock an aircraft carrier in Danang.
For a country as powerful and on the rise as China is, it's remarkable how insecure the CPC are about every little thing. It's an overwhelming indication of the fragility of their power and their own sense of security about their control.
this sounds like you're projecting something, honestly. I'd stray on the side of being wary of China, not dismissing them as "insecure" and "fragile." Just a dangerous mindset imo.
I don't think so. Trump for an example is very easy to see through in terms of his insecurity. People that behave a certain way while they're in extraordinary positions of power, reveal that fragility / insecurity.
China's behavior reeks of insecurity. Here they are, this massive, extremely powerful, rapidly growing economic juggernaut, and they behave like a scared mouse about the South China Sea (as though they really needed to steal that territory from their neighbors), about Vietnam & the US (as though Vietnam could ever threaten them), about the smallest slight from Japan or South Korea (who cares). It's incredibly revealing.
Besides the obviousness of China's reactions and behavior and what it reveals, authoritarian regimes are universally wildly insecure. The people that seek authoritarian positions of power are similarly universally insecure. Take Stalin, he was like a man-child in terms of insecurity, and most dictators you can name from the last century were likewise, that includes everyone from Saddam to Putin (look at his recent tantrum performance, putting on a visual display of Russia nuking the US at his state of the nation speech, trying his best to hide vast insecurity).
Your comment breaks the site rule against insinuating astroturfing or shillage. We enforce that pretty rigorously because it's a poison that can destroy the whole community if we let it. So would you please not do it again, regardless of how wrong someone is or seems?
If you think an account is abusing HN, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look at the data. Astroturfing is a bannable offense—but we need to find evidence of it. So is using HN primarily for political, ideological, or national battle. All this is at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Overwhelmingly, though, when users here think they smell astroturfers, shills, spies, bots, and foreign agents, what they're really encountering is the diversity of opinion on this site. HN is deeply divided on most divisive issues, just like society at large is—or rather, societies, because it's a majority international site.
Most of us organize our lives to avoid having opposing opinions in our face all the time. Consequently, when we do encounter them on a site like HN which isn't siloed—i.e. doesn't have any mechanism like subreddits or follow/block—it feels bad and we resort too quickly to the belief that these other people can't possibly be posting in good faith. Mostly, though, they are. The community is just divided that way.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html