EU Firms Help Power China's Military Rise

[Audio]

You are one funny guy!

China, on PPP, has about as much money for R&D as the US now but it's economy is growing much quicker. That means that over time it will eventually spend much more than the US.

There is money to spend on other things like the polluted water which will not affect R&D. China will prioritise money for R&D as that is critical for it's national security. It will not go down the EU route of extremely high amounts of money for welfare and health care, not till it becomes much richer.

It is funny to see the frustration here at China's progress that polluted water is now being used as a reason why China cannot develop technology.

okay, mr. "virtually unlimited". Whatever you say. China strong!

1000 more choppers from Europe tommorow!

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Just as Martin said before, the West has played a little role or none on China's most essential military technology. Let's see:

Stealth Fighter/Bomber: Nope
Turbofan Engine: Nope
SSBN/SSN: Nope
ICBM/SLBM: Nope
HGV: Nope
ABM: Nope
AESA Radar: Nope
Aircraft Carrier: partially from USSR/Ukraine
Gas Turbine: partially from USSR/Ukraine

Diesel Engine: Yeah, what's a big deal about it?

You can see that, all the West sold to China were mostly unimportant secondary military technology, yet they are so desperate to take away the entire credit from China's own hard work.

 

[gambit]

Can you please en-light me what technology Europe have which is equivalent or superior to Chinese DF-21 missiles, Kinetic Kill Vehicle for Satellite killer, Hypersonic Missile Vehicle, Chinese Fastest computer etc. and please don't say that these all are useless

You are seriously confused between the technology base and the devices that came from said base.

For example, if you build a car with a V8 while I have only a V6, that does not mean you have a superior technological base than I do. We both share the same base, which is the internal combustion engine concept that utilizes pistons moving in linear motion inside a cylinder. You just have two more cylinders than I do. On the other hand, if I turn out a turbine, which is an alternate method of sustaining and controlling explosions, but you do not, then we can debate on which device is superior or applicable for which application.

There are two kinds of entrepreneurship: catch-up and frontier.

All the weapons systems that you trumpeted as somehow a superior technological base for China are actually devices that came from catch-up entrepreneurship and production.

- Missile guidance was frontier entrepreneurship from the West but the same concept applied to the DF-21 is catch-up entrepreneurship from China.

- High speed rail was frontier thinking from the West but increasing the speed is catch-up thinking from China. Now, if China came up with a tiny level of anti-gravity and applied it to China's own high speed rail system, then we can say that China have a superior technological base for her high speed rail system than the West.

- Supercomputer and associated computational capabilities were frontier technology from the West but if China added a few more processors and improved the computational processes it is catch-up technology from China.

Your argument indicate you have no or little personal experience in technology and manufacturing, let alone the military applications of them. The reality is that there is no such animal as 'military technology'. The military institution is essentially an extremely conservative one, no matter the country. It has to be because when this institution go into action, people die and things are destroyed. Any device that the military uses must be thoroughly tested, preferably in the civilian environment before the technology and device are adapted for military usage.