Talk:Military budget of China

message: This page has been created because:
:#This topic was on three different pages: Sino-American relations, People's Republic of China and People's Liberation Army
:#The size of this topic is becoming too large.
The information is substracted and combined from these three pages.
Mjolnir1984 16:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Sino-Japanese relations. Mjolnir1984 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation of this page

message: I think this should be removed cause it is just speculation. It is not something that should be on Wikipedia. There are no credible sources for this and the DIA and CIA are not credible sources! We should just trust china in what they say they are spending on their military. Even if it seems it is not true. There are no credible sources to point out they are lying.
--Koentjuhh (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Unofficial estimates

message: This article is a mess, partially because Chinese are coming here and basically vandalizing it with their POV. It is fine that the Chinese POV / talking points are included BUT ONLY IF they are labeled as such and the American POV is provided (and labeled) as well. The Chinese that are vandalizing the page state their POV as facts, when what they are really doing is reacting defensively to any mention of China's defense spending. The article is also very poor quality, because it focuses on 2003 data, 7 years old now, when this issue is rapidly changing. 
1. China has been increasing military spending by over 10% per year since the 1990s, which is a far higher sustained rate of growth than any other nation. This is what makes this page newsworthy and notable.
2. THE MEAT OF THE ARTICLE: China understates its defense spending to some degree, and different groups disagree to what degree that is. Estimates range from highs of 2-3 times the stated figures, to about 50% more. The best way to handle this is to provide the given estimates. China's official figure and the US defense estimates are the main figures that matter because they are the groups most interested in this. Think tanks like RAND should be included as well, if available, as long as they are credible and fall somewhere in between. The current focus on 2003 is misguided, and if anything there should be a chart with figures from the 1990s to present, with columns showing the spending for each year, which would be far more beneficial than the current chart with compares 2003 spending to that of other countries. 
3. THE International POV: The US defense community cares so much about China's military spending growth and lack of transparency because China is "on the record" that it will invade Taiwan at some point in the future unless Taiwan capitulates, and the US has promised to defend Taiwan. In addition, China has behaved increasingly aggressively in the last decade as its military power has grown, with Chinese submarines violating territorial waters, stalking US ships, and the recent harassment of the US ship with the towed sonar. Other countries like Taiwan and Japan have made official comments on this issue as well. There are many sources that can be used to state the this POV, including the official defense reviews regarding China, official statements by Rumsfeld and his successors, and statements made by officials in other countries.
4. THE CHINESE POV: Any reference to "per capita". Any mention of US defense spending. This is an article on Chinese defense spending, not the US, that is a separate article. The Chinese arguments that the US spends more are part of the Chinese talking points on this issue and should be kept in the "Chinese Position" section.
In Conclusion, I think the article should be formatted with the following sections: 
(1) A brief explanation that the numbers are disputed, and citation to the most recent estimates.
(2) A chart showing china's defense spending going back as far as sources provide official estimates for at least China and the US, preferably in constant dollars.
(3) The non-Chinese POV, why the US and others are concerned, and so on. This should come first, because the Chinese POV is essentially a defensive reaction to this. This is not a strictly US POV, as other nations have also expressed concern over China's defense spending.
(4) China's response to the international concerns, citation to its talking points, and so on.
I think this format will make the article far more valuable to people who search for this article after seeing some news article on the subject, and will effectively educate them about the subject. This subject is a controversy, so it is impossible to remove all POV, as the people most likely to be editing this article are the same people with the strongest POV, so the best thing to do is to give each side a sub-section it can have as its POV playground. 
Let me know what you think. Thanks.
Kaltes (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese POV and proposed format

message: The Chinese government recently conducted an economic census which determined that the previous GDP figures were underestimating the size of the economy by 17%, mostly because of undereporting in the service sector.  I reduced the spending/GDP ratios to reflect the newer estimate for the size of the GDP.--Todd Kloos 10:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese Economic Census

message: The adding of the US and Japan parts are POV in my opinion.
(1) Japan
Telling Japan is "hypocritical" is an opinion. Japan's expenditures are at least partially inspired by the growing Chinese expenditures, there is a consensus about this in most academic articles. Also: What's the relevance of a highly controversial statement that Japan broke its own laws (constitution). Clearly, It is only relevant when a Chinese spokesman or politician would accuse Japan of of doing so - in the context of this spending controversy. If China did, no problem, but source the specific statements, as it seems POV now.
(2) US
Emphasizing that same can be said for US = opinion, who are you to judge? It seems that the US feels threatened (terrorism, rogue states & WMD (Iran, North Korea), and China's rising expenditures). See for instance the rapid increase in American military spending which occurred after 9/11 (expenditures substantially declined during the 90's), so the increase seems at least partially threat inspired. If it's said by Chinese spokesmen and politicans, source it and no problem. Sijo Ripa 23:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, such points are highly POV and shouldn't be included unless made by a Chinese spokesman. Japan has actually been cutting its budget (I think successively for the last four years), not increasing it. John Smith's 14:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's been removed. John Smith's 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: No discussion in weeks. I'm unprotecting this, it's time to edit. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: This page really needs updating - the figures for China are a year (two?) out of date. For example, SIPRI should read $41 billion. Can anyone bring this up to speed? John Smith's 14:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Figures

message: China has spending much much less money on millitary during 1980-2000. The following information is from wikipedia.
Destroyers commissioned into the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force since 1991:
*JDS Kongō class destroyers (4 in service) 
*Murasame class destroyers (9 in service)
*Takanami class destroyers (5 in service)  
Destroyers commissioned into the United States Navy since 1991:
*Arleigh Burke class destroyer 50+
Destroyers commissioned into the People's Liberation Army Navy since 1991:
By 1999:
*Type 052 Luhu class — 2 ships 
*Type 051B Luhai class — 1 ship 
Since 1999:
*Type 052B Guangzhou class (NATO Name: Luyang I Class DDG) — 2 ships 
*Type 052C Lanzhou class (NATO Name: Luyang II Class DDG) — 2 ships 
*Type 051C Luzhou class (NATO: Luzhou Class DDG) — 2 ships (on sea trials) 
*Project 956 Sovremenny class (NATO: Sovremenny I Class DDG) — 2 ships 
*Project 956EM Sovremenny class (NATO: Sovremenny II Class DDG) — 2 ships 
Another conparison is that China's first 4th generation jet fighter J-10 entered into service in 2004, while in 2007 twelve F-22 Raptors - the 5th generation fighter - have been deployed by US air force in Kadena Air Base - only several hundred miles from Shanghai.
It's very clear to me who is threating whom.Sinolonghai 15:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...fact check. China's military expenditure is growing at a pace that nobody really knows. And besides, you can't say, "I love China because China is now a superpower" if you don't have a strong army. So there you go, I've shown everybody of your hypocrisy. Obviously, your love of China is presupposes China having a strong army that allows her to defend herself from external threats. 158.143.214.163 (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comparisons of Chinese military force with their Japan/US counterparts

message: The article needs to be corrected for grammar and spelling.  I'd edit it but I don't know nor have the sources to work with.  Could someone put up a "Wiki-clean-up" header on the article?  (Psychoneko 04:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up of content to Wiki Standards 

message: I have deleted the first part of the section "A comparison", reasons are:
*First, this section does not include any sources at all, which is unacceptable in general, but especialy for numerical figures such as these.  
*Also, this section is contradictory to the information given on this page; especially the information given right below it in the same section (see article).  
*Third, since this topic is controversal, it would be wise to state which institution provided the figures, since the budget vary widely depending on who you ask.  
*And last, there is no reason why the budget for the USA would be excluded when given all reason, you would think it's military budget would be the most transparent, and not the other way around.
<BR>
Section that was deleted:
*Military Expenditure (Actual Exchange Rate Base) (in billion USD)
Year	China	Russia	Japan	US
2005	65   	55    	43   	430
2006	90   	N.A.  	42   	
2007	120  	N.A.  	43   	
*Military Expenditure (Actual Purchasing Power Parity Base) (in billion USD)
Year	China	Russia	Japan	US
2005	240  	110   	43   	430
2006	360  	N.A.  	42   	
2007	480  	N.A.  	43   	
142.239.254.20 14:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks!  I stumbled onto this page a couple days ago when the 2007 DOD report to congress on China's military capabilities came out.  It is definitely in need of some wiki-ing.  I was hoping that some of its' original authors would come by before I tore it apart.NByz 01:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem, feel free to edit this section with up to date information, which is in much need for this page.  24.89.245.62 06:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A comparison 

message: Where is the evidence that China is under reporting its defence budget.
Where is that money coming from and where is that money going to?
How can China hide theze huge sums year after year?
Wouldn't that destabillise there entire economy?
I have been hearing about this claims for year's now and i haven't see scant evidence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence 

message: Of interest from Barron's (newspaper) cover 27.June.2011: Dragon Fire: The U.S. military is getting ready to leave Iraq and Afghanistan. The next threat is much bigger. By Leslie P. Norton?  99.19.44.96 (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of interest from [[Barron's (newspaper)]] cover 27.June.2011? 

message: I think India should be added to the comparisons of Military Budget and Equipment because India and China are now going tit-for-tat in many fields.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of India to comparison list 

message: The method used to calculate the amount of military equipment each nation can afford is inaccurate.  
For example, it states that each unit, excluding troops, is modern equipment; then it estimates that North Korea could afford 24 modern attack submarines and 3000 modern tanks with its defense budget.  A modern attack submarine costs, conservatively, about $300 million per unit. (c.f. Type 209 Submarine)  A modern tank costs, conservatively, about $2 million per unit.  (c.f. ZTZ99)  The cost of all those items alone would be over 13 billion dollars, or almost 50% of North Korea's GDP, and that's excluding the thousands of fighter jets and other pieces of equipment, supplies, small arms, and training.  North Korea's defense budget, even at the highest estimates, is only 25-30% of GDP.  Alternatively, you could just look at the chart and wonder how NK manages to afford a larger military, composed entirely of modern equipment, than SK, even though NK's stated defense budget is only 1/5th of South Korea's.
Finally, I was unable to find a source for that table.  Hence I am removing it.  If anyone has any objections, please list them below and I will put the table back.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostromantic (talk • contribs) 23:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of military equipment -- inaccurate 

message: Would someone more skilled (than me) do more military budget pages for other countries? I think it's important to have military budget pages for example: UK, France, Russia, India and Japan as their budgets are also big and important. I can't do myself, because I don't have enough skills or information about the topic, but the information is really important. So this is a request to someone to do this!
--Ransewiki (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone do more pages like this (for other nations)? 

message: "2017 PRC has announced a rise of 28% in defence budget allocation. It is about 5.2 % of the GDP. Defence budget is about 16021 Billion Yuan. It is approximately 2.4T$ US. It is 4 times the US defence budget"
Is this accurate? It doesn't sound at all correct, and the source given from Reuters states it is a quarter of the size of the US defence spending, not four times as much. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totals accurate? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Military budget of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150320062225/http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2010_CMPR_Final.pdf to http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2010_CMPR_Final.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328104327/http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/15majorspenders to http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/15majorspenders
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140208055140/https://milexdata.sipri.org/files/?file=SIPRI%20milex%20data%201988-2012%20v2.xlsx to http://milexdata.sipri.org/files/?file=SIPRI%20milex%20data%201988-2012%20v2.xlsx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129014345/http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_database1.html to http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_database1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Military budget of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319023856/http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=495 to http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=495
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: After "Amitai Etzioni of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies urges policymakers to avoid jumping to the conclusion that China is a rising "adversary" based on its military budget and economic success" there should be an opposing view talking about China's military buildup, like "whereas writer John Zmirak has warned that China is "arming faster than Hitler was arming in the thirties."”, which he said at John Zmirak: China Is ‘Arming Faster than Hitler Was Arming in the Thirties’, Breitbart News. Breitbart is being used here as an opinion piece. WP:BREITBART says "This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used...It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary." --2001:8003:4023:D900:F98D:9A34:BDFC:9B9E (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: no one is disagreeing with this, so I'll change it. --2001:8003:4023:D900:49ED:C207:966F:B7C (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  China arming faster than Hitler in the thirties 

message: According to the CIA factbook, about 2% of PRC GDP goes to the military; it also says the GDP is $25 trillion (PPP, which is what we should be using because the PRC does not buy its weapons internationally, for the most part). Thus 2% X $25T = $500 billion. Far higher than the estimates presented here.Warren Platts (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page doesn't make sense