Masao Miwa
Financially probably not. We are already increasing our debt at $1 trillion-plus a year into the foreseeable future. We gave our corporations and oligarchy a free ride to enrich themselves on the back of the bottom 90%. To answer your question, the Chinese don’t need to equal US military spending.
经济上可能跟不动了。我们的债务已经以每年1万亿美元以上的速度增加，在可预见的未来里这个趋势无力扭转。我们让企业和寡头占尽便宜，让他们踩在底层90%民众的利益之上发家致富。而且对于你的问题，我的回答是中国的军费开支也无需与美国持平。
However, the Chinese have a secret right under your nose. The Chinese don’t make $13 billion dollar aircraft carriers nor $11 billion dollar submarines. They get a bigger bang for the RMB because their cost per item is much lower. Their costs are lower because their military is focused on the defense of the homeland and not the invasion anywhere on the globe. That makes the need for less expensive weapon systems and because of their manufacturing efficiencies and lower labor costs, can produce equivalent equipment at a lower price than the US.
不过中国人有一个公开的秘密。中国人没有制造造价高达130亿美元的航空母舰，也没有制造造价高达110亿美元的潜艇。他们的商品成本低廉很多，所以他们的人民币投资收益就更大。他们的成本低是因为他们的军队一心一意保卫祖国，未曾入侵其他国家，他们不需要太昂贵的军火武器。而且因为他们的高生产效率和低用工成本，因此他们生产和美国相同设备的造价会更低。
Over-simplified, China can spend $1 billion for 20 anti-ship missiles to knock out a $13 billion dollar aircraft carrier if it dared to enter Chinese waters to attack China. Asymmetry warfare means you use less to fight more. They can buy 20 AIP submarines for defense against one US nuclear boat. In a war of attrition, numbers count.
简单来说，如果一艘造价130亿美元的航空母舰敢驶入中国海域攻打中国，中国只需花费10亿美元制造20枚反舰导弹就足以击毁这艘航母。不对称战争意味着你可以用更少的资源打更多的仗。他们可以购买20艘AIP潜艇来防御一艘美国核潜艇。而在消耗战中，往往会以量取胜。
Norman Owen
It depends on what you mean by “keep up.”
Right now the USA spends FAR more on its military, in absolute terms, than all of its nearest rivals put together.
这取决于你对“跟得上”的定义。
目前，美国在军事上的开支绝对比所有差距最小的竞争对手加起来还要多。
If China increased its military spending to the same relative level as the USA, it would still not surpass the USA, because the latter’s GDP is still higher . Therefore, the USA would still be spending more on the military, though its comparative advantage would not be as great as it is now.
In that sense, it would more than “keep up.” It would remain ahead.
如果中国军费增加到与美国相应的水平，它也无法超过美国，因为美国的GDP还是更高一些。所以美国在军事上的花费还是会更多，但比较优势不会像现在这么显著。
从这个意义上说，美国不仅能“跟得上”，还将继续领先于中国。
If, however, you are wondering whether in terms of military efficiency this advantage of spending would turn into actual advantage in time of war, I don’t know, nor does anyone else.
Pray that we never find out.
但如果你好奇的是在军事效率方面，这种军事投资的优势能否在战争时期转化为实战优势，我就不清楚了，谁都不得而知吧。
祈祷我们永远都不用知道。
David Liu
china has much larger industry might than USA.(metriced by industry output value, china industry scale=usa's +japan`s+germany`s now)
due to larger industry scale, china~made weapons as well as other made~in~china costperformances more than made~in~USA.
thus ,china can afford more weapons with less defense expenditure.
中国的工业实力比美国强多了。(按工业产值计算，中国的工业规模=美国+日本+德国的总和)
因为工业规模更大，中国研发的武器以及中国加工的武器比美国军火更具性价比。
因此，中国可以用更少的国防开支造出更多的武器。
in fact, china managed to deploy more warships ,tanks and missles than USA last year,although china`s defense expenditure is only 1/3~1/4 of USA`s.
if china keeps its economy and defence expenditure growing, the cost performance of `made in china'' will give china more upper hand.
USA would face a situation harder than ever seen inpro the past,because USA has never launched arm race against a rival with larger industry might.
事实上，中国去年就部署了比美国更多的军舰、坦克和导弹，但中国的国防开支只占到美国的1/3~1/4。
如果中国保持经济增长和国防开支增长的趋势，“中国制造”的性价比将使中国占据更大的优势。
而美国将面临前所未有的艰难局面，因为美国从未与工业实力更强的对手展开过军备竞赛。
BTW, during WW II,USA produced thousands of "liberty ship", ship countless weapons/goods "made in USA" to allies, crushing axs.
it exactly showed how a industry hegemony took over the military hegemony.
now industry hegemony has been taken over by china.
it makes USA in a position even harder than UK against Germany before two world wars.
顺便说一句，在第二次世界大战期间，美国生产了数千艘“自由轮”，向盟友运送了无数“美国制造”的军火/货物，摧毁了轴心国。
这恰恰表明了工业霸权是如何取代军事霸权的。
现在，全球工业霸权的地位已经被中国接管了。
所以比起两次世界大战前英国对战德国，美国如今的局势更为艰难。
Dan Bradbury
What if China spent the same percentage of its GDP on defense as much as the US? Would their military be larger?
Yeah. A lot larger. The US doesn’t spend as exorbitant an amount as people caterwaul about. 3.5% of GDP is pretty reasonable. It’s just that the US is gigantic and that translates into a ~$600 billion a year budget.
如果中国的国防开支占GDP的比例和美国一样高会怎样？他们的军队规模会更大吗？
是的。要大得多。美国的军事支出并不像人们咋呼得那么高。GDP的3.5%是个相当合理的比重。不过美国是一个大国，这意味着每年的军事预算能达到6000亿美元的规模。
Does China want to spend that amount? Meh. I don’t think so. I’m not the government in Beiing so I can’t say for sure. One of the jokes in DC is that China already has a blue water navy, it’s called The United States Navy. Meaning, that the primary job of the US Navy is securing the oceans for free trade. It’s not like the USN is sinking Russian and Chinese cargo ships. It travels to and fro making it VERY easy for China, Russia and India to send their stuff around the world.
中国会愿意支出这么多钱吗？我很怀疑。华盛顿有一个笑话，说中国已经拥有一支深水海军了，名字叫美国海军。这意味着，美国海军的主要工作是保护海洋自由贸易。美国海军又不可能击沉俄罗斯和中国的货船。所以中国、俄罗斯和印度把商品运往世界各地就非常容易了。
One of the tiny, tiny functions of the USN is to defend the US from attacks. QUICK! When was the last maritime attack on the US? Right. Like, forever ago. So China doesn’t really need to match the US in naval arms. The worst kept secret in the universe is that the USN isn’t really effective at waging war against a country like China. There’s no amphibious landing sufficient to defeat China in a war on their shores. Nor are there enough supercarriers to be much of a threat to them.
It’s all about trade and energy security.
美国海军的一个极其弱小的作用才是保护美国。快问快答一下吧，上次美国遭受海上袭击是什么时候？没错，那已经是非常久远的事了。所以中国不需要在海军军备上与美国抗衡。全宇宙最糟糕的秘密就是，美国海军在对中国这样的国家发动战争时毫无优势。两栖登陆也根本不足以冲破中国的海岸线。美国也没有足够多的超级航母对中国构成威胁。
一切的一切都围绕着贸易和能源安全。
That last part is important to China and why it’ll develop a blue water navy in the next 25 years to ensure it can get all the minerals and oil it can buy from the Mideast and Africa. It wants to secure the First Islands. But beyond that, China has LOT of work to do inside of China and that takes a lot of money, money that it really doesn’t want to spend building a dozen carriers to patrol the Atlantic Ocean.
最后一点对中国来说很重要，这也是为什么中国必须在未来25年内组建一支深水海军，以确保它能从中东和非洲进口所需的矿产和石油。中国要保护第一群岛。但除此之外，中国国内也有很多发展需求，也需要大量投资，中国真的没有意愿把这些钱浪费在建造十几艘航母并巡航大西洋上。
Alex Rounds
If China put as much of its GDP into its military as the USA, could the USA keep up at all?
China does put a large portion of its budget into the People's Liberation Army. It needs to go considerably farther in spending on military development to catch up - not just with the spending but with deployment.
如果中国在军事上投入的GDP和美国一样多，美国能跟得上吗？
中国确实为军队投入了很大一部分预算。美国需要在军事发展方面大幅增加开支，迎头赶上——不仅在开支方面，还有部署方面。
And as the People's Republic grows its military, the US and the world would see that as a threat and respond appropriately.
When we fear, when we feel threatened, we don't cringe, we address those things or people that threaten us.
随着中国军事实力的增强，美国和世界将中国视为威胁，采取了相应的行动。
当我们感到害怕、感到威胁时，我们绝不会退缩，我们会把那些威胁我们的事或人收拾干净。
Charles Mashingaidze
Using both the Exchange Rate Method and the Purchasing Power Parity, China has a 15% edge according to the IMF’s 2016 figures.The same forecasts the gap to increas into the 2020s. The above however, like all economic stats, is bone dry econometric extrapolation minus all other factors.So would China keep up assumes they are at par (are they?) and which areas would each country want a strategic advantage.As we all know, it is not economic might that wage war and come to think of it, is that what the world needs today? Would nt it benefit both to cooperate for global peace and humanity’s well-being?
根据国际货币基金组织2016年的数据，无论是采用汇率法还是购买力平价法，中国都有15%的优势。
该机构还预测，到本世纪20年代，这一差距将继续扩大。
不过，就像所有的经济统计数据一样，这些数据是减去其他因素后的枯燥的计量经济学推断。
那么，中国能不能在两国势均力敌的情况下保持优势，能吗
以及两国希望在哪些领域占据战略优势。
众所周知，发动战争的不是经济实力，仔细想想，这就是当今世界所需要的吗？
为了世界和平和人类的福祉而合作，不是对双方都更有好处吗？
George Urban Isaacs
If China put as much of its GDP into its military as the USA the USA would continue to surpass China at a faster rate. Why?
The GDP of the USA is greater than China’s GDP
China has far more people to feed, clothe and house. People in China have a far greater need for the little GDP per capita their people have and have a smaller portion of their GDP available for military adventures.
如果中国的军事预算占GDP的比重和美国一样多，美国将继续以更快的速度领先中国。为什么呢？
美国的GDP比中国的GDP更高。
中国有更多的人口，需要保障他们的吃穿住行。中国的人均GDP还需要大幅提高，他们的GDP中可用于军事预算的比重更小。
Egonieser Locman
Related
When China has a GDP two times that of the United States and a military that size how will the US be able to deter the Chinese militarily?
China is still far off having a US capability, not to mention they don't have force projection based doctrine nor bases scattered all around the world in allied countries like the US, which makes any kind of long term, long distance assault impossible as it would be logistically impossible without ally help or forward operating bases nearby.
当中国的GDP达到美国的两倍，军事规模也达到美国的两倍时，美国还怎么能在军事上威慑中国？
中国现在的实力还远远落后于美国，更何况他们没有以派遣兵力为基础的做法，也没有像美国那样拥有分散在世界各地盟友国家内的军事基地，所以任何长时间、远距离攻击都不可能实现。没有盟友的帮助，没有临近的前沿作战基地，后勤是无法保障的。
And regarding economy. Yeah it's big, and so is their population of 1.6bn people which makes the GDP per capita MUCH MUCH smaller than that of the US. Wealth and economy is irrelevant if you don't take the number of people living in the country into consideration.
至于经济方面。没错，中国确实很强，但他们拥有16亿人口，所以人均GDP比美国低得多。如果不考虑国家人口，财富和经济是不相关的。
Luxembourg is far wealthier than either US or China. Not because their total GDP is huge, but their income vs population ratio is massive. That's true wealth. A large number of people requires a large economy to maintain, doesn't mean they have large amount of disposable income in the end of the day.
卢森堡比美国或中国都要富裕得多。但并不是因为他们的GDP总量巨大，而是他们的人均GDP很高。这才是真正的财富。大量的人口需要庞大的经济规模来维持，但这并不意味着他们拥有大量的可支配收入。
上一篇
