What's new

China becomes No.4 in global arms export replacing France

Albatross

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
-3
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
2014-03-18 00:24:51 GMT2014-03-18 08:24:51(Beijing Time) Global Times
China has become the world's fourth biggest supplier in major weapons over the past five years, notably replacing France, according to a Swedish research institute.

Analysts said the new ranking shows China's military industry has gained momentum, but that the main advantage of arms produced by China is the low price rather than core technology.

Chinese exports of major weapons increased by 212 percent during 2009-2013, compared with the previous five-year period, and China's share of global arms exports increased from 2 to 6 percent, said a report released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on Monday.

The three biggest exporters of arms were the US, Russia and Germany.

China supplied major weapons to 35 states in the past five years, mainly low and middle-income countries. Almost three-quarters of Chinese exports went to just three clients: Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar, the report said.

China's rapidly developing military technology partly explains its expansion as an arms supplier, in direct competition with Russia, the US and European states, said the report.

"The progress in the military industry has been made due to the nation's increase in investments in the field," Shan Xiufa, a research fellow at the Academy of Military Sciences of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), told the Global Times.

However, he noted that China mostly exports regular weapons. China's military industry can only be considered at the global second-tier level, distant from the first-tier countries such as the US, due to its lack of weapons with independent intellectual property rights.

"Weapons produced by China are price competitive and the country is skillful in combining others' technology," Shan said, noting that it is a reflection of the country's relatively low innovative capability in general industry.

The US delivered more weapons than any other supplier in the past five years, to at least 90 recipients. Asia and Oceania were the biggest recipient regions for US weapons, accounting for 47 per cent of US deliveries, said the report.

"Chinese, Russian and US arms supplies to South Asia are driven by both economic and political considerations," said Siemon Wezeman, senior researcher with the SIPRI Arms Transfers Program, noting that China and the US are using arms deliveries to Asia to strengthen their influence in the region, reported Press Trust of India.

However, Liu Weidong, an expert on the US with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that China is not comparable with world powers in increasing political influence through arms sales.

"China will consider raising its political influence in the countries that import its arms, for example, it sells weapons to allies such as Pakistan or Myanmar, but the US is more assertive in maintaining its political influence through arms exports," he said. He noted that China holds an inclusive attitude as it is not at the same level with the US on expanding political influence by selling arms due to China's less competitive technology.

Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), has come under strong pressure from its NATO allies since it announced in September last year it would purchase China's HQ-9 long range surface-to-air missile system in preference to European, Russian and US alternatives. Ankara may yet rethink the potential $3.44 billion deal with China, Istanbul-based Hurriyet Daily News reported on March 11.

The five biggest importers were India, China, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, said the report. Arms imports by states in Asia and Oceania increased by 34 percent between 2004-2008 and 2009-2013.

"China's lack of independent research and development in arms demands more imports of weapons, especially those with information-based technology, to realize the modernization of the army," Shan said, noted that it partly accounts for China's increasing defense expenditure.

Liu noted that Asian countries are gaining further ground on importing arms, reflecting the current potential for tension in the region.
China becomes No.4 in global arms export - China News - SINA English
 
We have zero ability to innovate disruptive technologies. That's why we have to copy the Su-27, Blackhawk, SAMs, etc.

This is due to the education system where lack of critical thinking is hurting the students and lack of private enterprise in the defence sector.

Unless we start to put out innovative DISRUPTIVE technologies, we will forever be behind the west in technology and be the butt of all jokes.
 
We have zero ability to innovate disruptive technologies. That's why we have to copy the Su-27, Blackhawk, SAMs, etc.

This is due to the education system where lack of critical thinking is hurting the students and lack of private enterprise in the defence sector.

Unless we start to put out innovative DISRUPTIVE technologies, we will forever be behind the west in technology and be the butt of all jokes.
You are right and even the R&D asian govt are intending to indulge in is based on EU or US tracks . We need to come up with new ideas and do our research from scratch as we may not achieve the goal in that particular project but it will open many new opportunities for us . For instance lets just think can we use magnetic beams to make things travel at higher speeds over a long distance?
 
We have zero ability to innovate disruptive technologies. That's why we have to copy the Su-27, Blackhawk, SAMs, etc.

This is due to the education system where lack of critical thinking is hurting the students and lack of private enterprise in the defence sector.

Unless we start to put out innovative DISRUPTIVE technologies, we will forever be behind the west in technology and be the butt of all jokes.

I disagree. I have been educated in both US and China and I can tell you that the "eastern education causes lack of innovation" stereotype is pure BS. Eastern education gives the students a solid foundation of knowledge, something that is priceless as far as research goes.

You can't be innovative without having a firm grasp on the basics. While innovation do take jump and leaps at certain junction, it is largely an iterative process. Basically, you work on something repeatedly and improve the process a little each time. This is how innovation is actually done rather than "disruptive". In fact, one of the problems with Chinese research today is that China is still not investing enough into fundamental researches. This is actually proposed in the recent second round of meetings of 12th National People's Congress in this March.

Look, if Chinese way of education really isn't as good as US, then Chinese technological process would fall farther behind rather than catching up with US. The technological gap today between China and US is certainly a lot smaller than say, two decades ago and the gap is getting smaller day by day.

Personally, I think the biggest problem with Chinese education is that it gives way too much weight to English. Sure, the ability to speak a foreign language helps, but currently English plays too big a role in student's entrance into university or going into graduate study.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I have been educated in both US and China and I can tell you that the "eastern education causes lack of innovation" is pure BS. Eastern education gives the students a solid foundation of knowledge, something that is priceless as far as research goes.

You can't be innovative without having a firm grasp on the basics. While innovation do take jump and leaps at certain junction, it is largely an iterative process. Basically, you work on something repeatedly and improve the process a little each time. This is how innovation is actually done rather than "disruptive". In fact, one of the problems with Chinese research today is that China is still investing enough into fundamental researches. This is actually proposed in the recent second round of meetings of 12th National People's Congress in this March.

Look, if Chinese way of education really isn't as good as US, then Chinese technological process would fall farther behind rather than watching up with US. The technological gap today between China and US is certainly a lot smaller than say, two decades ago and the gap is getting smaller day by day.

I agree with you. The fundamental researches of China is still weak but catching up fast by investing huge into it. Innovation is not a problem today. The image of the lackness of innovation may be caused by the business patterns which concentrate on make fast and big money. Let's wait and see.
 
I agree with you. The fundamental researches of China is still weak but catching up fast by investing huge into it. Innovation is not a problem today. The image of the lackness of innovation may be caused by the business patterns which concentrate on make fast and big money. Let's wait and see.

I think that the rapid progress of China in the recent years make a lot of people forget that China is a relative new comer into the cutting edge of technology. Just two decades ago westerners wouldn't even consider China a competitor in cutting edge technology. In comparison, our "innovation" is a lot stronger today.

To be honest, I would use the word "innovation" with care, because it can describe a lot of things. For example, one interpretation of innovation is the ability to find new perspective and new applications for existing stuff. China is very good with one. Why is that? Because there is no first comer's advantage just to get a new perspective.

However, I think a lot of people are associating "innovation" with cutting edge. Achieving this is a lot more difficult because no matter how inventive you are, if the other party has been at it way longer than you have, he will likely have way much experience, better equipment and overall better chance to deliver something cutting edge. This is the root of China's problem----we are still making up for the fact that our industrial revolution is close to two centuries behind Europeans.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom