Studi Strategici ed Intelligence… for dummies

US Overstated China’s Military Spending, Study Says

Published by Silendo on Maggio 21, 2005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Defense Department may have overestimated China’s total military spending by more than two-thirds, according to a report for the Air Force released on Thursday.

The RAND Corporation, a research group that studies many issues for the Pentagon, estimated China’s military spending totaled $31 billion to $38 billion in 2003, which it said was the most recent year for which full data was available.as high as $65 billion, 71 percent greater than the high end of RAND’s estimate.

The communist state itself has used a figure of about $25 billion, but U.S. experts say that does not include research and development, pensions and some other costs normally included by western militaries.

RAND’s figure could raise questions about some of the arguments used by U.S. decisonmakers to justify continued spending on big-ticket weapons systems.

The Defense Department, asked to comment on the findings, said it was standing by the numbers it used in its fiscal 2003 annual report to Congress on Chinese military power.

The Pentagon “asks for greater transparency in China’s People’s Liberation Army military budget reporting,” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Gregory Hicks, a Pentagon spokesman.

“It is well known that the PLA is embarked on an ambitious, long-term military modernization effort to develop capabilities to fight and win short-duration, high-intensity conflicts along its periphery,” Hicks said.

The Defense Department monitors China’s military modernization closely, “particularly those aspects that are directed at Taiwan,” he said. The United States is committed to helping Taiwan’s self-defense but without provoking China, which deems Taiwan a rogue province.

In its fiscal 2004 annual report to Congress on China’s military power, released on May 28 last year, the Pentagon put China’s military outlays at $50 billion to $70 billion.

China’s military has denounced the Pentagon figures as wildly exaggerated. In a commentary on June 15, the People’s Liberation Army said the true sum was about $25 billion, which it equated to 1/19th of U.S. national defense spending.

China, the PLA said, was “one of the countries with the lowest per capita national defense expenditure.”

RAND estimated China’s defense spending at 2.3 percent to 2.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2003. Using what it called newly available Chinese-language primary sources, it said this was 1.4 to 1.7 times the official Chinese number.in 2003, or about $417.5 billion.

“China’s defense spending has more than doubled over the past six years,” almost catching up with Britain and Japan, said Kent Crane, the RAND study’s lead author. “Although the rate of increase has slowed, by 2025 China will be spending more on defense than any of our allies.”

James Mulvenon, an analyst who contributed to the report before leaving RAND to join another consulting group, said the U.S. government had been using a lot of “wild-assed guesses” about Chinese military spending rather than digging into original source material.

“Basically, we’re correcting a lot of U.S. government estimates that weren’t based on empirical fact,” said Mulvenon, now at the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis, a Washington-based group that consults for U.S. intelligence agencies.

Il Rapporto di cui sopra…

Il Rapporto in versione Zabetta…

Posted in: Blog
Tagged:
affari strategici, intelligence

Chi Sono

Silendo

Un appassionato di relazioni internazionali e studi strategici. In particolar modo di questioni connesse con l'intelligence.
Per contattarmi:
info@silendo.org

Leggi tutto...

Accedi

Tweet di @Silendo_org

Archivio

Categorie

Tags

affari strategici afganistan algeria al qaeda arabia saudita australia cina criminalità organizzata cyber-mf difesa egitto estremismo francia germania gran bretagna guerriglia hamas hezbollah india intelligence iran iraq ISIS israele italia Leadership e classe dirigente libano libia libri medio-oriente minkiate nato nucleare e risorse energetiche pakistan palestina russia sentimenti sicurezza nazionale siria somalia stati uniti strategic foresight studi di intelligence terrorismo turchia

Blogroll

  • Affari Internazionali
  • Agentura
  • American Enterprise Institute
  • ANSSI
  • AOL Defense
  • Arms Control Wonk
  • Asia Centre
  • Asia Times
  • Aspen Institute Italia
  • ASPI
  • Atlantic Council
  • Baker Institute
  • Banca d'Italia
  • BBC
  • Belfer Center
  • Bellingcat
  • Bertelsmann Foundation
  • BESA Center
  • Bibliografia sull'intelligence
  • Bloomberg
  • Bloomberg View
  • Brookings Institution
  • Bruegel
  • Carnegie Endowment
  • Carnegie Middle East Center
  • Carnegie Moscow Center
  • CASD
  • Center for a New American Security
  • Center for Economic Policy Research
  • Center for European Reform
  • Center for Naval Analyses
  • Center for Nonproliferation Studies
  • Centre d'Analyse Stratégique
  • Centro Einaudi
  • Centro Studi Confindustria
  • CEPR
  • CF2R
  • Chatham House
  • China Leadership Monitor
  • CISAC
  • Combating Terrorism Center
  • Comparative Strategy
  • COPASIR
  • Corriere della Sera
  • Council on Foreign Relations
  • CSBA
  • CSFRS
  • CSI – CIA
  • CSIS
  • CSS
  • CSS Strategic Trends Analysis
  • Danger Room
  • DCAF
  • Defence News
  • East online
  • ECFR
  • ECIR
  • Economist
  • Egmont Institute
  • Epistemes
  • EsadeGeo
  • ESPAS
  • EU Institute for Security Studies
  • Eurasianet
  • European Policy Centre
  • Fareed Zakaria
  • FAS
  • FAS – CRS
  • FAS – DNI
  • Fas – Strategic Security Blog
  • Financial Times
  • Foreign Affairs
  • Foreign Policy
  • Foreign Policy – National Security
  • FPRI
  • FRS
  • FSI – Stanford
  • Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • German Council on Foreign Relations
  • German Marshall Fund
  • Global Trends 2030
  • Globalsecurity.org
  • Governo italiano
  • H-Net
  • Harvard International Review
  • HCSS
  • Heritage Foundation
  • Horizon Scanning Centre
  • Horizon Scanning Centre – Toolkit
  • House Armed Services Committee
  • House Committee on Homeland Security
  • House Committee on International Relations
  • House Intelligence Committee
  • HSPI
  • https://sinocism.com/
  • Hudson Institute
  • IAEA
  • IDSA
  • IEA
  • IFRI
  • IHEDN
  • IISS
  • IMF
  • INET
  • Infinity Journal
  • Infoguerre
  • INSS – Israele
  • INSS – USA
  • Institute for Government
  • Intelligence & National Security
  • Intelligence Studies Section
  • IntellNews
  • International Crisis Group
  • International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence
  • International Security
  • International Security Studies
  • IRIS
  • ISIS
  • Istituto Affari Internazionali
  • Istituto Italiano di Studi Strategici
  • Jamestown Foundation
  • JFK School of Government
  • JFQ
  • Joshua Rogin
  • Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
  • Journal of Strategic Security
  • Journal of Strategic Studies
  • Kings of War
  • Lowy Institute
  • LSE IDEAS Blog
  • Macro Polo
  • McKinsey Global Institute
  • Mercator Institute
  • Merlin
  • Military Review
  • Miller Center
  • MIT Center
  • Munich Security Conference
  • National Bureau of Asian Research
  • National Defense Intelligence College
  • National Intelligence Council
  • National Interest Online
  • National Security Archive
  • National Security Journal
  • Naval War College Review
  • NCTC
  • New America Foundation
  • New York Times
  • Newsweek
  • Nixon Center
  • Notre Europe
  • OCSE
  • ODNI
  • On Think Tanks
  • Orbis
  • Oxford Analytica
  • Oxford Intelligence Group
  • Papers – APSA
  • Papers – ISA
  • Parameters
  • Perspectives on Terrorism
  • Peter Bergen
  • Peterson Institute
  • Phillips P. Obrien
  • Proceedings
  • Project 2049
  • Project Syndicate
  • Public Intelligence
  • RAND
  • Real Instituto Elcano
  • Reuters
  • Robert Kaplan
  • RSIS
  • RUSI
  • Secrecy News
  • Security Studies
  • Senate Armed Services Committee
  • Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Senate Committee on Homeland Security
  • Senate Committee on Intelligence
  • Sentinel
  • SGDSN
  • Silicon Continent
  • SIPRI
  • SISR – Intelligence italiana
  • Source&Methods
  • South Asia Analysis Group
  • Spiegel International
  • Stephen Walt
  • Stimson Center
  • Strategic & Defence Studies Centre
  • Strategic Studies Institute
  • Strategic Studies Quarterly
  • Strategika
  • Stratfor
  • Studies in Conflict & Terrorism
  • Terrorism and Political Violence
  • The Back Channel
  • The Diplomat
  • The Interpreter
  • The Overoholt Group
  • The Strategist
  • The Strategy Bridge
  • Time
  • Transatlantic Academy
  • U.S.-China Commission
  • UN Millennium Project
  • Venus in Arms
  • VOX
  • Wall Street Journal
  • War on the Rocks
  • Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  • Washington Post
  • WCFIA – Harvard
  • Wilson International Center
  • World Economic Forum
Locations of visitors to this page
© 2026 SILENDO Design & Dev by Artemida Srl