China recently announced that its military defense expenditure in 2018 would be over $175 billion. This is an 8 percent increase over last year and will go to further modernization of equipment and more expansive missions. The new modernization of equipment includes building China’s first aircraft carrier, advanced guided missile destroyers, advanced engines for submarines, and 5th generation fighters like the J-20. Chinese analyst Gou Xiaobing says the country needs a strong military to operate varied traditional and non-traditional security missions, such as the protection of maritime rights, countering terrorism and maintaining stability, emergency rescue and disaster relief, international peacekeeping, escorting in the Gulf of Aden, and providing humanitarian aid.
China claims this is a very small increase, a small percentage of their GDP, and still much smaller than countries like the United States. It’s true that their official numbers are a mere fraction of US military spending and a small percentage of their GDP. But China’s economy is so much bigger than its neighbors that their spending in absolute terms dwarfs that of its neighbors. Plus it’s an open secret that China manipulates their numbers. As discussed on OpsLens, China doesn’t report the cost of housing and billeting its soldiers, weapons acquisition, and their nuclear weapons program. The median of estimates from analysts argues that China’s spending, if accurate, would be at least four times higher than reported, which makes them roughly equal with the US in spending.
Of course, conflicts are more than just math contests. China has the advantage of being larger than all of its neighbors combined and having a central position where they can shift resources and assets between theatres much more easily than their neighbors. The reorganization and modernization of their military facilitated their ability to project power. They have made Japanese fighters scramble at least 1,000 times, violated South Korean airspace, artificially seized and built-up islands in the South China Sea, and are establishing bases in the Horn of Africa and Pakistan. This suggests, at the very least, a much more expansive (and many would say aggressive) role in world affairs. They increasingly have the power and desire to seize disputed territory, which they called in their announcement of the new budget merely “defending their rights.”
PEARL HARBOR (Dec. 13, 2015) Senior Captain Wang Jianxum, deputy chief of staff of East Sea Fleet, People’s Liberation Army (Navy) and commander, Escort Task Group, CNS Jinan (DDG-152) gives Rear Adm. John Fuller, commander, Navy Region Hawaii and Naval Surface Group Middle Pacific a tour of the bridge of the CNS Jinan (DDG 152) during a routine port visit to Hawaii. The port visit demonstrates parity and reciprocity between two maritime nations. As part of a planned series of military-to-military exchanges between two nations, Chinese and U.S. naval officers will conduct dialogues to build confidence and mutual understanding. (Credit: Petty Officer 2nd Class Nardel Gervacio via Wikimedia Commons)
This makes US military involvement incredibly important, as the US is the only military that can match and outgun the Chinese. The US recently sent a carrier to visit Vietnam and strengthen relations with that country. The US continues to conduct Freedom of Navigation patrols that act as an important deterrent of China’s unilateral seizure of territory, and there are even breakthroughs in negotiations with North Korea. All of these events act as important steps in strengthening relations against what could be Chinese aggression.
Fly-by of the Chengdu J-20 during the opening of Airshow China in Zhuhai. (Credit: Alert5 via Wikimedia Commons)
Of course there are many caveats to this supposed aggression. China faces the same (and even worse) mechanical issues with their advanced fighters than the US does with the F-35. Chinese fighter pilots are described as “dumb” by their commanders. The Chinese need at least three carriers plus a significant amount of fighters and escort ships to create a truly operational battle group. And this battle group would be using new technology with little operational experience and no combat experience by soldiers, pilots, and seamen with the same inexperience. Saddam Hussein had a large battle-tested army with advanced, Russian-made equipment. He promised the mother of all battles against America, but his army collapsed in 100 hours.
None of this is to say that the US should get complacent. For every mother of all battles that flops, there is a new and rising power that seeks to defeat the dominant one. The Japanese defeated the Russians in startling fashion in 1905, and a surprise attack from China could be America’s next Pearl Harbor. The US Navy has been in several embarrassing accidents that suggest basic naval skills might be eroding.
In short, the Chinese budget is cause for concern, especially when their real spending is considered. They have shown aggressive behavior in East Asia and increasingly have a force that can project power outward. But they also have significant questions concerning their potential wartime performance. The US should continue to train and prepare as though its enemy is an existential threat, but not give in to fearmongering.
