Its greater then their headline spending numbers. If you adjust for purchasing power there is even a bigger difference then their official numbers. But its still less than the US's spending (although something like 85 or 90 percent instead of a much smaller fraction. Perhaps the numbers should be adjusted by a bit less than purchasing power parity (the difference between costs for high tech, or even more mundane military items isn't likely to be the same as it is for civilian production, and at least for the more advanced items is likely to be less), but even then you still get well over half, and China's spending is growing faster, and at least at the moment (and probably at least for the next couple of decades) any conflict would likely happen nearer to China, where China has almost all its forces while American forces are spread across the world with the largest portion in the relatively distant North America.
The main counterbalancing advantages for the US are
1 - The US has more built up capability from previous spending. (But military equipment is a depreciating asset, not a productive investment so the importance of this declines over time).
2 - The US is more likely to have allies on its side.
3 - The US has some geographical advantages. China has to get past potentially hostile countries in the first (and depending on the scenario 2nd) island chains. Also its easier to interdict shipping to China (at least with a distant blockade, a close blockade would be too costly) than it is to the US.
4 - (This one is weaker and less certain) China would probably be seen as the aggressor and get a more hostile world reaction then the US would. The US isn't going to invade China, or just start lobbing missiles at if for the lols. A war with China would most likely start over a Chinese attack of Taiwan, and the other scenarios mostly involve China grabbing disputed territory as well. If China doesn't make such an attack there won't be any war.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Its greater then their headline spending numbers. If you adjust for purchasing power there is even a bigger difference then their official numbers. But its still less than the US's spending (although something like 85 or 90 percent instead of a much smaller fraction. Perhaps the numbers should be adjusted by a bit less than purchasing power parity (the difference between costs for high tech, or even more mundane military items isn't likely to be the same as it is for civilian production, and at least for the more advanced items is likely to be less), but even then you still get well over half, and China's spending is growing faster, and at least at the moment (and probably at least for the next couple of decades) any conflict would likely happen nearer to China, where China has almost all its forces while American forces are spread across the world with the largest portion in the relatively distant North America.
The main counterbalancing advantages for the US are
1 - The US has more built up capability from previous spending. (But military equipment is a depreciating asset, not a productive investment so the importance of this declines over time).
2 - The US is more likely to have allies on its side.
3 - The US has some geographical advantages. China has to get past potentially hostile countries in the first (and depending on the scenario 2nd) island chains. Also its easier to interdict shipping to China (at least with a distant blockade, a close blockade would be too costly) than it is to the US.
4 - (This one is weaker and less certain) China would probably be seen as the aggressor and get a more hostile world reaction then the US would. The US isn't going to invade China, or just start lobbing missiles at if for the lols. A war with China would most likely start over a Chinese attack of Taiwan, and the other scenarios mostly involve China grabbing disputed territory as well. If China doesn't make such an attack there won't be any war.
More options
Context Copy link