RDBD: But America's spending is 7 times that of China's. So how can the latter be a military superpower?
Having the money to achieve military superpower status and actually having the weapons is a different thing.

Back to it.
If like staging the 2008 Olympics, China decides that winning the World Cup is a potent statement of political/economic power, like the Olympic medal tables during the Cold War days, then yes they will do it soon enough.

Other than that, there is not yet the grass-roots desire/interest in the game akin to what happened in South America for example.

china probably pays its service personel peanuts.

who knows how it records its weapons spending. it probably doesnt declare it.

china is a military threat, which is why america has so many bases in the pacific and indian oceans, why australi has recently agreed to american troop deploymnets in australia and why japan is constantly tapping up the UN about disputed islands between the 2 countries.

China has nuclear capability and sufficient funds to have a nuclear program....that makes it a superpower militarily.

It's also been mooted many times that the next world war will not have a battlefield, it will be played out on the financial markets or in cyberspace....not much you can do with a shedload of arms if thats the case

JPB: So China has loads of tanks, missiles,nuclear weapons which are going undetected? Interesting.

China is a military threat (in America's eyes). But it's not a military superpower. Can you not understand the difference?

"china probably pays its service personel peanuts"

Side story.
When Kong Kong was handed back to the PRC, local fears were that the PLA would be all over the colony, much like USA servicemen when their fleet berths in HK.

People were told that the average PLA wage is so low that they couldn't probably afford to even have one night out on the tiles.

JPB: So China has loads of tanks, missiles,nuclear weapons which are going undetected? Interesting.
======================

who knows if theyre going undetected.

you based it on declared military spending though.

are you saying that those figures were compiled by americans who went round and inspected each country ?

"But America's spending is 7 times that of China's. So how can the latter be a military superpower?"

Is your definition of "military superpower" :

The amount of money you spend on the military, regardless of the resulting ROI or utility of that spending ??

JPB: I think the world would know if China had 9 warships instead of, say, two. It's not the kind of thing one can easily hide away.

I just realised the cheese sandwich I'm eating has a better grasp of world politics than a typical

JPB: I think the world would know if China had 9 warships instead of, say, two. It's not the kind of thing one can easily hide away.
=====================

Maybe they do, but we arent talking about figures which list military capability, we are talking about figures (presumably provided by each government) declaring how much theyve spent on the military.

For all I know the US chief of staff or whatever he's called is sitting there saying "yeah right, as if".

But surely if you spend money on 9 warships, there would be 9 warships parked up somewhere?

where's 9 warships come from ???

you've listed the military spending declared by each country, not the military assets declared by each country.

OK...in footballing terms...

One day David Gold decides he wants to make West Ham the new Barcelona but knows he hasn't the cash. So he decides to phone around the other clubs to see if they'll help out. All say no, except Daniel Levy who says he's in for £500 million with a 10% interest rate and we get your club and stadium if you default.

Gold agrees...goes off and buys Messi, Ronaldo and anyone else half decent...building the finest squad the world has ever seen. Everything is going great until the day before the start of the season when Levy calls and says he wants the loan repaid in full with immediate effect.

Who do you think has the upper hand?

Surely military spending involves the purchase of military hardware, such as warships? It's hardly going to be on laptops and microwaves.

"you've listed the military spending declared by each country, not the military assets declared by each country."

The USA of course has "black box" military spending reporting for various areas.

Perhaps mys, like me, has read several articles over the years in stuff like IEEE Spectrum etc which gives a bit of insight into USA military funding, and issues thereof (procurement, budget over-runs, project processes etc) .

i dont think that people are saying they want their loans repaid with immediate effect.

the terms of the loans will have been agreed in advance, and are likely to include a right for the whole debt to be paid back at the lender's whim.

so i think we're missing the point here which is that the lending agreemenets include interest payments. it is these interest payments which borrowers (including america) have been unable to repay.

I thought this thread was about football?

The Chinese army is ok with me

I know JPB, it was only an analogy...though the truth is if I thought it would get the odious Brady and Gold out of football I'd be organising the whipround.

China apparently own around $1.2 trillion of US debt...god knows what the interest rates are on it

"I thought this thread was about football"

It was, until mys tried to show off his deluded knowledge of Chinas' economic, politcal power etc.

yeah, i wasnt having a go at your post Groove, just a general observation

JPB: You've not answered my question.

Anyway, imagine this scenario. The big school bully asks the little wimpy kid for money. He gives the money of his own volition, on a promise that it will be repaid. This happens over a period of time.

One day, the little kid asks for the money to be repaid. The bully says he doesn't have it and so won't pay it back. What next?

He goes to the head or his parents and looks to get it back that way. He's been clever and made a note of every penny he's handed over.

The US debts are legally binding and watertight...they don't have a leg to stand on and the global community could not back them up

JPB: You've not answered my question.
=====================

Your questions generally miss the point, either due to you not grasping the point, or due to you deliberately trying to change the focus of the discussion away because it is not going in favour of the arguments which you have presented.

In this case you presented spending figures and claimed that they proved beyond doubt that china is not a military superpower. i have pointed out that those figures are probably just the figures declared by each government and that it is quite possible that the declarations are false. the point/question you have subeqeutnyl raised does not appear to be relevant to this discussion, however I did adress the point in the context in which it was raised.

"and the global community could not back them up"

NUKE them too (commie pinkos) !!!