U.S.Military Capabilities Compared with Those of China
The Bush administrations national securi-ty strategy attempts to ensure Americanpri-macy by outspending other nations on defense many times over ，thus dissuadingthem from competing with the United States.The United States is already more powerfulmilitarily relative to other nations of the world than the Roman，Napoleonic ，or British Empire was at its height.According to the national security strategy，Today ，the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled mili-tary strengthand great economic and political influence.8And the Bush administration would liketo keep such U.S.military domi-nance by profligate spending on military mightthat is deployed around the world.The history of international relations indicatesthat this strategy has little chance of succeed-ing.Historically，when threatenedby a coun-try that had become too powerful ，nations banded together to balanceagainst it.Of course ，administration officials claim that the United States isa benevolent power and that other nations will feel no need to balance against it.Such countries as Russia，India，and especially China might disagree.For example，China accuses the United States of maintain-ing a policy of containment，and Russiahas protested the expansion of the NATO alliance up to its borders.A good placefor more sus-tainable and less threatening U.S.policies to start is in East Asia.
Forces and Defense Spending.Currently ，the United States maintains about 100，000mili-tary personnel in East Asia.That military pres-ence is centered in Japan（41，000），South Korea（37，000），and afloat （19，000）。At sea ，theUnited States stations one carrier battle group and one Marine amphibious groupforward in the region and will now ensure that a second carrier group will be theremore of the time.The United States will also augment the num-ber of nuclear submarinesstationed in Guam.That military presence seems small compared to the military forcesof China，which has active forces of 2.3million.
Yet the U.S.military presence deployed forward in East Asia is only the tipof the ice-berg.That presence is a symbol of U.S.inter-est in the region andof the world-dominant U.S.military juggernaut that could be brought to bear againstthe large ，but largely antiquated ，Chinese military during any war between thetwo nations.
The United States spends about $400bil-lion a year on national defense andalone accounts for about 40percent of the worlds defense spending.There is somedispute about how much China spends because not all of its defense spending （forexample ，funds for weapons research and procure-ment of foreign weapons ）isreflected in the official Chinese defense budget.9David Shambaugh ，a prominentacademic authori-ty on the Chinese military，estimates total Chinese defense spendingat about $38bil-lion per year.10In the same ballpark，the International Instituteof Strategic Studies Military Balanceestimates such spending at $47billion peryear.11In contrast，the U.S.Department of Defenses estimate is pre-dictably muchhighernoting that annual Chinese military spending couldtotal $65billion.12BecauseShambaugh and the IISS do not build weapon systems to combat threats and thus haveno inherent conflict of interest，their independent estimates are probably lessprone to threat inflation than is DoDs estimate.
China has had real（inflation-adjusted）
increases in defense spending only since 1997.Chinese military expendituresare con-strained by limits on the ability of Chinas central government to collectrevenues and the concomitant budget deficit.13Moreover，increases in military spendinghave been sur-passed by rapid Chinese economic growth，leading to declines in defensespending as a proportion of gross domestic product.The $38billion to $47billionrange is roughly what other medium powers ，such as Japan，France ，and the UnitedKingdom ，spend on defense.But the militaries of those other nations are much smallerand more modern than the obsolete Chinese military，which needs to be completelytransformed from a guerrilla-style Maoist peoples army into a modern force thatemphasizes projec-tion of power on the sea and in the air.（Since the early 1990s，the Chinese have reoriented their military doctrine from fighting a peo-ples warunder modern conditions to fight-ing and winning a high-technology war againsta modern opponent.）14So the Chinese must spend much of their increases in officialdefense funding to prop up their sagging，oversized force and slowly convert itto a force that can project power ，to meet escalating payroll requirements tocompete with the thriving Chinese private sector，and to compensate the militaryfor off-the-books revenues lost when the Chinese polit-ical leadership orderedthe armed forces to stop running commercial businesses.
Consequently，Chinas spending to acquire weapons is equivalent only to thatof countries with total defense budgets of $10billion to $20billion.15Given thatthe United States ，with a gargantuan budget for the research，development，andprocurement of weaponswell over $100billion per year16is leaving its rich NATOallies behind in tech-nology （there is fear in NATO that U.S.capa-bilities areso far advanced that the U.S.armed forces would not be able to operate with alliedmilitaries），it most surely is leav-ing China in the dust.
The Chinese Defense Industry.The Chinese defense industry remains state owned，is grossly inefficient，and has had an abysmal track record of developing and producingtechnologically sophisticated weaponry.Thus，when press articles，hawkish analysts，or even the DoD notes Chinas pursuit of asymmetric technologies （ways that theweak can attack the vulnerabilities of the strong ）such as anti-satellite systems，infor-mation warfare ，and radio frequency weapons（nonnuclear devices that generateelectromagnetic pulses，much like those of a nuclear blast ，that neutralize enemyelectron-ics ）it does not mean that the Chinese efforts will be successful.Infact，most of the significant technological progress in the Chinese military hasresulted from weapons purchases from Russia.In other words ，the $1billion or$2billion a year China spends on Russian weapon systemswhich so alarms anti-Chinahawks in the United Statesis actually a sign of weakness in the Chinese defenseindustrial base.For example，Chinas purchase of Russian Kilo diesel sub-marinesprobably indicates that significant problems exist with Chinas homegrown Song-classsubmarine program.
Even when the Chinese buy advanced weapon systems abroad，they have difficultyintegrating them into their forces.For exam-ple ，the Chinese have had problemsintegrat-ing the Russian-designed Su-27fighter into their air force.17As in manyother militaries of the Third World ，deficiencies in Chinese training ，doctrine，and maintenance for sophisticated arms do not allow the full exploitation of suchsystems.
Military Equipment.Although the best crude measure of a nations military poweris probably its defense spending（because it includes money spent for the all-importantintangibles ，such as pay，training ，ammuni-tion ，maintenance of equipment），a nations military capital stockthe dollar value of its military hardwareisa measure of its forces modernity.The U.S.militarys capital stock is almost $1trillion.In contrast ，despite the purchase of some sophisticated Russian weapons，the capital stock of the largely obsolete Chinese military is only one-tenth ofthat totalwell under $100billion.In fact，China has fewer top-of-the-line weaponsthan middle powers，such as Japan and the United Kingdom ，and smaller powers ，such as Italy ，the Netherlands，and South Korea.18A further measure of a militarystrue capa-bility is based on how much is spent per sol-dier （for training，weapons，and the like）。
Even when calculated from the inflated DoD estimate of Chinese defense spending$65billion per yearChinas spending is less than $33，000per troop ，whereas the UnitedStates spends $213，208and Japan spends $192，649.19That disparity in value mirrorsa wide gap in capabilities.In contrast to the thoroughly modern U.S.military，Chinas armed forces have been able to modernize only slowly and in pockets.Accordingto DoD，the Chinese have a large air force3，400combat aircraft but only about100are modern fourth-gener-ation aircraft20（for example ，the Russian-designedSu-27and Su-30）。Most Chinese aircraft incorporate technology from the 1950sor 1960s.In contrast ，all of the more than 3，000aircraft in the U.S.air servicesare fourth-generation aircraft（F-14s ，F-15s，F-16s ，and F-18C/Ds ），andfifth-generation air-craft （F-22s and F-18E/Fs）are already begin-ning production.Even Chinese pilots who fly the limited number of fourth-generation fighters getonly 180flying hours of training per year（the pilots of older aircraft get muchless）；U.S.fighter pilots average 205flying hours per year.21
Is Chinese Military Modernization a Threat to the Un
Is Chinese Military Modernization a Threat to the Un