Why would the US release a report criticizing that, when they spend probably twice that amount.
Ok here we go:
USA: $623,000,000,000
China: $58,700,000,000 (59bn)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … penditures
USA spends practically 10x more, and the population is like a quarter of China
And even the UK spends more than China
Ok here we go:
USA: $623,000,000,000
China: $58,700,000,000 (59bn)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … penditures
USA spends practically 10x more, and the population is like a quarter of China
And even the UK spends more than China
Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-03-04 02:58:21)
World Total 1,200bn.Mek-Izzle wrote:
Why would the US release a report criticizing that, when they spend probably twice that amount.
Ok here we go:
USA: $623,000,000,000
China: $58,700,000,000 (59bn)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … penditures
USA spends practically 10x more, and the population is like a quarter of China
And even the UK spends more than China
imagine having a spare 1,200 billion to go towards developing 3rd world countries...
Venezuela only 4bn mmmm?
US: 4.06% GDP
PRC: 4.3% GDP
Use figures that are comparable.
PRC: 4.3% GDP
Use figures that are comparable.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
US U$D 2,000 per capitaFEOS wrote:
US: 4.06% GDP
PRC: 4.3% GDP
Use figures that are comparable.
PRC U$S 50 per capita
Oh wow. I hope Cold War 2 doesnt start anytime soon (although I highly doubt it will).
But it is interesting...
But it is interesting...
noice 
COLD WAR II: BIGGER, BADDER, AND SLIGHTLY CHILLIERKuSTaV wrote:
Oh wow. I hope Cold War 2 doesnt start anytime soon (although I highly doubt it will).
But it is interesting...
Nobody appreciates the American sense of humor any more... lolMek-Izzle wrote:
Why would the US release a report criticizing that, when they spend probably twice that amount.
ƒ³
yay, stats penis comparison...sergeriver wrote:
US U$D 2,000 per capitaFEOS wrote:
US: 4.06% GDP
PRC: 4.3% GDP
Use figures that are comparable.
PRC U$S 50 per capita
Seriously, as long as everyone here can draw up stats that support either point, why not leave stats out if this completely ?
I suggest we discuss implications, not numbers.
The question is, how is China going to spend that money ? On what systems, and for which purpose ?
From the article:
"China rejected the Pentagon report as a "serious distortion of facts" that could harm its relations with the US.
"It breaks international norms... We do not pose a threat to any country. The US should drop its Cold War mentality," the foreign ministry said in a statement."
hehe...
chop sticksB.Schuss wrote:
yay, stats penis comparison...sergeriver wrote:
US U$D 2,000 per capitaFEOS wrote:
US: 4.06% GDP
PRC: 4.3% GDP
Use figures that are comparable.
PRC U$S 50 per capita
Seriously, as long as everyone here can draw up stats that support either point, why not leave stats out if this completely ?
I suggest we discuss implications, not numbers.
The question is, how is China going to spend that money ? On what systems, and for which purpose ?
From the article:
"China rejected the Pentagon report as a "serious distortion of facts" that could harm its relations with the US.
"It breaks international norms... We do not pose a threat to any country. The US should drop its Cold War mentality," the foreign ministry said in a statement."
hehe...
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6373|Graz, Austria
Those statistical numbers remind me of the BF2 top ten leaderboard hacks:
Ridiculously exaggerated.
Ridiculously exaggerated.
Top spenders on defense, according to percent of GDP
1 North Korea 22.90 2003 est.
2 Oman 11.40 2005 est.
3 Qatar 10.00 2005 est.
4 Saudi Arabia 10.00 2005 est.
5 Iraq 8.60 2006
6 Jordan 8.60 2006
7 Israel 7.30 2006
8 Yemen 6.60 2006
9 Armenia 6.50 2001
10 Eritrea 6.30 2006 est.
11 Burundi 5.90 2006 est.
12 Syria 5.90 2005 est.
13 Angola 5.70 2006
14 Mauritania 5.50 2006
15 Maldives 5.50 2005 est.
1 North Korea 22.90 2003 est.
2 Oman 11.40 2005 est.
3 Qatar 10.00 2005 est.
4 Saudi Arabia 10.00 2005 est.
5 Iraq 8.60 2006
6 Jordan 8.60 2006
7 Israel 7.30 2006
8 Yemen 6.60 2006
9 Armenia 6.50 2001
10 Eritrea 6.30 2006 est.
11 Burundi 5.90 2006 est.
12 Syria 5.90 2005 est.
13 Angola 5.70 2006
14 Mauritania 5.50 2006
15 Maldives 5.50 2005 est.
China probally gets way more out of what they spendMek-Izzle wrote:
Why would the US release a report criticizing that, when they spend probably twice that amount.
Ok here we go:
USA: $623,000,000,000
China: $58,700,000,000 (59bn)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … penditures
USA spends practically 10x more, and the population is like a quarter of China
And even the UK spends more than China
Interesting group there if you look closely at the list.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Top spenders on defense, according to percent of GDP
1 North Korea 22.90 2003 est.
2 Oman 11.40 2005 est.
3 Qatar 10.00 2005 est.
4 Saudi Arabia 10.00 2005 est.
5 Iraq 8.60 2006
6 Jordan 8.60 2006
7 Israel 7.30 2006
8 Yemen 6.60 2006
9 Armenia 6.50 2001
10 Eritrea 6.30 2006 est.
11 Burundi 5.90 2006 est.
12 Syria 5.90 2005 est.
13 Angola 5.70 2006
14 Mauritania 5.50 2006
15 Maldives 5.50 2005 est.
Gotta watch those Maldives...
They both enjoy hypocrisy. It's kinda like when the Chinese were implicating we were only shooting down that satellite a couple weeks ago to "show off". Even though they did it last year without even warning anyone beforehand or sharing information after.Mek-Izzle wrote:
Why would the US release a report criticizing that, when they spend probably twice that amount.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
This thread should have been called China wants Taiwan! But alas Taiwan is real close to the biggest kid on the block. So the China men must think of a way to bypass this kid indirectly as at the moment they dont have his cash flow. That must be what the anti-satellite weapon is about. Modern armies are so relent on them for communications and fire support, getting rid of them may level the playing field somewhat.
Still you have to wonder what they hope to achieve while there being so out spent. Most real conflicts come down to cash at the end of the day.
Whats the saying go like:
"amatures study tactics, professionals study and leaders study economics" (Sorry butchered that!)
And China has'nt got the cash.
Still you have to wonder what they hope to achieve while there being so out spent. Most real conflicts come down to cash at the end of the day.
Whats the saying go like:
"amatures study tactics, professionals study and leaders study economics" (Sorry butchered that!)
And China has'nt got the cash.
Last edited by Jepeto87 (2008-03-04 10:09:10)
They spend a lot more than their published military budget...not that they come close to the US's spending. I doubt that their payroll is nearly as large as ours, which is where quite a bit of the US budget goes.
Payroll and retirement benefits. The majority of our budget is manpower expenses.RAIMIUS wrote:
They spend a lot more than their published military budget...not that they come close to the US's spending. I doubt that their payroll is nearly as large as ours, which is where quite a bit of the US budget goes.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
New Cold War = China. . . . .
We are at the beginning stages of what is about to be a VERY turbulent relationship. . . . .
We are at the beginning stages of what is about to be a VERY turbulent relationship. . . . .
And how long have people been saying that for?fadedsteve wrote:
New Cold War = China. . . . .
We are at the beginning stages of what is about to be a VERY turbulent relationship. . . . .
The media sure as hell hasnt classified the relationship as a cold war yet. . . . But I can tell you that China is in ACTIVE pursuit of trying to take us on economically and militarily. They may have a couple billion folks but America when provoked is a nasty country to fuck with!! Its only a matter of time till China deliberately steps on our toes. . . .Poseidon wrote:
And how long have people been saying that for?fadedsteve wrote:
New Cold War = China. . . . .
We are at the beginning stages of what is about to be a VERY turbulent relationship. . . . .
There is no more room hre on Earth. IF nations would just evolve beyond paranoia and imperialism, maybe we could work TOGETHER with all that money, and as a global alliance, actually move beyond earth.
In this era, this timeframe, it is technically possible to actually colonize other planets. I don't understand why this isn't a HUGE HUGE issue.
We are squabbling over slivers of land here on earth. Sure it's costly to get off this rock, but so is war and military spending.
Seriously, the human race needs to grow the fuck up.
In this era, this timeframe, it is technically possible to actually colonize other planets. I don't understand why this isn't a HUGE HUGE issue.
We are squabbling over slivers of land here on earth. Sure it's costly to get off this rock, but so is war and military spending.
Seriously, the human race needs to grow the fuck up.