[2025-10-12]Quora问答：为什么中国在军事上的开支这么少（只占GDP的1.3%）？这甚至远低于北约的最低要求

是的，那时候我们很穷，但这并不意味着我们做不出美味的饭菜。我们又不是英国人。

Eric Shao
“We are not the British.” hahaha, Lmao.

【回复】“我们又不是英国人。”哈哈哈，笑死我了。

Jesuan Wu
Yes. These food buckets are actually extremely tasty. I remember eating from them in kindergarten.

【答主回复】是的，这些食桶的食物实际上非常好吃。我记得我在幼儿园时吃过。

James Cloutier
Another important contextual thing: here in the west we aren’t used to the schools providing lunch for the students, they’re expected to bring their own lunches.
I was basically raised on peanut butter and strawberry jam sandwiches for lunch… and was envious of the Asian students who basically showed up with an entire hotpot meal 🤷🏻‍♂️

【回复】还有一个很重要的背景：在西方这边，学校一般不会给学生提供午餐，大家都习惯自己带午饭。我小时候午餐基本都是吃花生酱和草莓果酱三明治…而我一直很羡慕那些亚洲学生，他们基本上每次都能带一顿火锅似的丰盛午餐来学校。🤷🏻‍♂️

Moa Aier
Good analogy. Accurate too.

【回复】很好的比喻，也很准确。

Gooloo Ggg
Corruptive westoid society where everyone is on the take so a bigger cake (budget) for taking right 😱

【回复】腐败的西方社会，人人都在捞好处，所以预算越大，能捞到的好处就越大，对吧😱

Jesuan Wu
The Chinese can be very corrupt too, but then corruption is illegal and can be punished, death even.
For profit military companies allowed to lobby for contract？It’s corruption legalized. The day they start shooting Boeing executives for fixing prices or stock buy back or quality issues, is the day the US starts to match China in efficiency.

【答主回复】中国人也可能非常腐败，但腐败在中国是违法的，甚至可能被判死刑。允许以盈利为目的的军工公司游说争取合同？这就是把腐败合法化了。等到美国开始因为操纵价格、回购股票或质量问题而枪毙波音高管的那一天，美国在效率上才算追上中国。

Harvey King
We just happened to have a ruthless leader at the helm that really cracked down on corruption. It could easily went another way otherwise.

【回复】我们只是碰巧有一位铁腕的领导人掌舵，严厉打击了腐败。否则事情很可能会朝着完全不同的方向发展。

Chiang Seng Erh
Anti-Corruption is a system, not an individual.
The west is having their system to legalize corruption, encourage corruption and allowing every politician to get rich.

【回复】反腐败是一套制度，而不是某个人。西方有他们的体制，将腐败合法化，助长腐败，让每个政客都能发财。

Keith Tom
It only takes 1 strong leader to turn a corrupt system around, just as it only takes one corrupt leader like Dump to totally trash a system.

【回复】只需要一个有力的领导者就能扭转腐败的体制，正如只需要一个像特朗普那样的腐败领导者就能彻底毁掉一个体制。

Chiang Seng Erh
China may be different because the Chinese government is always looking at their people’s welfare and living conditions as well as constantly checking on officials. Their system is totally different.

【回复】中国可能不一样，因为中国政府一直关注人民的福祉和生活条件，并且不断监督官员。他们的体制完全不同。

W. T.
So, on one hand you have a country where corporate interests have a great deal of pull on the government and can over-charge for everything.
On the other, you have a government with absolute authority that can disappear you if you say the wrong things.
Forgive me if I say I’ll take a little grift over authoritarianism - especially since the grift shows up in the authoritarian state too, just in different ways.

【回复】所以，一方面，有这样一个国家，企业利益集团对政府有很大影响力，能对所有商品漫天要价。另一方面，有一个拥有绝对权力的政府，如果你说错话，它能让你消失。
如果我说相比威权统治我宁愿接受一点贪腐现象，还请见谅，尤其是因为贪腐在威权国家也存在，只是表现形式不同。

Jesuan Wu
But in the real world, the US is the one disappearing people, not China. Unless you think people have forgotten about the Epstein files.

【答主回复】但在现实世界里，让别人消失的其实是美国，不是中国。除非你认为人们已经忘记了爱泼斯坦的案子。

Keith Tom
you do you. I’ll take a clean government any day. Singapore is a great example.

【回复】你随意。我始终都想要一个清廉的政府。新加坡就是一个很好的例子。

Enrique Que
In US, lobbying in is legalized bribery in disquise

【回复】在美国，游说就是披着外衣的合法贿赂。

Kanthaswamy Balasubramaniam
Gr8 answer Jesuan!!!!

【回复】回答得太棒了，Jesuan！！

PolitoMutt
I've always thought the same. Those charts that compare actual spending aren't very useful for this reason. They will eclipse the US military eventually for this reason.
Where it gets interesting to me is aircraft carriers. I suspect the only reason they don't have a fleet of carriers is they know they are iterating and learning. It simply wouldn't make sense to mass produce their current designs. When they are ready though oh boy. As the global leader in ship building, I suspect they will go from one to a dozen carriers in a single year when they have concluded they have a modern design akin to the latest US carriers.

【回复】我一直都这么认为。正因为这个原因，那些对比实际支出的图表其实并不是很有用。也正因如此，他们最终会在军事上超过美国。
让我觉得有意思的是航母。我怀疑他们之所以还没有一支航母舰队，唯一的原因是他们还在不断迭代和学习。大规模生产他们目前的设计其实并不合理。但等到他们准备好了，噢，那可不得了了。作为世界造船业的领导者，我怀疑一旦他们确定有了类似美国最新航母的现代化设计，可能会在一年之内从一艘航母扩展到十几艘。

Alan Leung
It's a learning process; look at the way Chinese destroyers evolved from the Type 51 to the currently mass-produced Type 52D and Type 55.
The PLAN constantly built one or two of each upgrade model while fixing deficits, testing technologies, and setting in-between models before finally mass-producing something they were happy with.
This also gave the sailors time to learn and adapt to new technologies and modernized warfare. As well as shipbuilders time to develop and train the necessary technologies and skills to build these ships.

【回复】这是一个学习的过程；看看中国驱逐舰从051型到现在批量生产的052D型和055型的演变过程就知道了。
中国海军在每一代升级型号上通常会建造一两艘，通过修正不足、测试新技术、并在最终大规模生产他们满意的型号之前，推出过渡型号。
这也让水兵们有时间学习和适应新技术与现代化作战方式，同时也让造船工人有时间发展和掌握建造这些舰艇所需的技术和技能。

Faiz Muhammad
Well explained. Tnx

【回复】解释得很清楚，谢谢。

Paul Mitchell
Also the manufacturers are selling to politicians not military experts, so the defense forces end up with over priced over complex kit, rather than simple, easy to maintain and effective.

【回复】而且制造商卖给的是政客而不是军事专家，所以防务部队最后得到的是价格过高、过于复杂的装备，而不是简单、易于维护且有效的装备。

Kent Redenius
I don’t know if you could consider it propaganda. You’re pretty much right about the downside of capitalism. Profits.
It is fact that capitalism drives innovation. That’s why China transformed their economy from socialism to a capitalist style system…

【回复】我不确定这是否能算作宣传。你说的资本主义的弊端基本没错，就是利润。
资本主义推动创新，这是事实。这也是为什么中国把经济从社会主义转变为类似资本主义的体制…

Jesuan Wu
Not necessarily.
Competition drives innovation. Necessity drives innovation. Capitalistic greed for money is just one way to encourage competition and necessity to innovate.
For examplex DJI puts up internal teams to compete with one another on making the best drones. The team that loses has to work for the team that wins to make the winner’s drone. DJI didn’t have to spend more money other than salary on better drones, but the system drove drone innovation more than any money ever could at Go Pro Karma.
Chinese MIC teams are promoted by the results they deliver. The Chengdu team was made by broken off misfits from Shenyang. They were outcasts, nerds who didn’t do social networking as well as the ones left at Shenyang and sent off to some mountains thousands of miles from home. And man did they work wonders on the J10 and J20 projects to outcompete their old house bosses. What better vindication can one get, but outranking you old boss who sent you away? That’s not an urge money can buy.
Capitalists love to quote "human nature" to encourage money spending. Turns out pride is as good a driving force in human nature as money, maybe even more so.

【答主回复】不一定。
竞争推动创新，需求推动创新。资本主义对金钱的贪婪只是激励竞争和创新的方式之一。
例如，大疆会让内部团队互相竞争，看看谁能做出最好的无人机。输的团队要为赢的团队工作，帮助完善赢家的无人机。大疆除了正常的薪水外，并不需要花更多的钱，但这种机制带来的无人机创新，可能比GoPro Karma花再多钱都要有效。
中国的军工团队是靠业绩晋升的。成都团队其实是从沈阳分出来的一群“边缘人”。他们是被边缘化的书呆子，不像留在沈阳的那些人那样擅长社交，被发配到数千里外的山里。但他们在歼-10和歼-20项目上创造了奇迹，最终超越了他们原来的“老东家”。还有什么比超越曾经把你踢出去的老板更让人扬眉吐气的？这种动力是金钱买不到的。
资本家总喜欢用“人性”来鼓励花钱。但事实证明，自豪也是人性中强大的驱动力，甚至可能比金钱更强。

Kent Redenius
You can’t have capitalism without competition…

【回复】没有竞争就没有资本主义…

Ting Yi Zhi
Still, 1.3% is kinda less. Need more!

【回复】不过，1.3%还是有点少。需要更多！

Prem Nand
It is the Government sector employees who are unproductive. They stop work and go on strike without justification. They should first compare themselves with the common man and see how much they are supported by the Govt. and aim to improve their productivity. This is present day drawback.
Nandakumar

【回复】是政府部门的员工效率低下。他们没有正当理由就罢工、停工。他们首先应该和普通人比较一下，看看政府给了他们多少支持，并且致力于提高自身工作效率。这就是当下的弊端。
——南达库马尔

Auzz
The American tax payers have been milked of their money by their greedy defence contractors for years.

【回复】多年来，美国纳税人的钱一直被那些贪婪的国防承包商榨取。

Joshua Shelton
“The catch? No ultra-rich military complex!”
Not sure I really believe that, but I do believe their workers won’t get rich.

【回复】“关键是什么？没有超级富豪的军工复合体！”
我不太相信这一点，但我相信他们的工人不会变富。

Jesuan Wu
Chinese military companies are state owned companies. Heads of state owned companies, fortune 500 companies included, have a hard cap on their income. Dunno the latest figure, but it was close to $90k per year just a few years back. Any more than that, and you face corruption probe and potentially jail time or even a firing squad.

【答主回复】中国的军工企业都是国有企业。国有企业的高管，包括世界500强企业在内，他们的收入都有严格上限。我不清楚最新的数字，但就在几年前，这个上限大约是每年9万美元。超过这个数额，就有可能被调查腐败问题，甚至可能面临牢狱之灾，严重的话还可能被枪毙。

Rikki-San
Yeah right, 1,3% my rear, Bet they spend more than the US but as always CCP hiding the facts.

【回复】得了吧，1.3%？骗谁呢。我打赌他们花的钱比美国还多，只是中共像往常一样在隐瞒事实。

Wong Peng Chiong
Lining up for their lunch from buckets?

【回复】排队从食桶打饭？

X. Long
In 1997 China, people weren’t exactly dirt poor anymore—it had already been a decade since the open-market reforms kicked in. But let’s be real: not everyone was suddenly living large. Especially folks outside the private sector, who kind of kept their old-school habits—like dressing as if fashion was optional and thriftiness was a competitive sport. (Case in point: the guy rocking that torn shirt with confidence
and yes, the food from the bucket is usually really good!

【回复】1997年的中国，人们其实已经没那么穷了——毕竟改革开放已经十年了。但说实话，也不是所有人一下子就过上了好日子。特别是体制外的人，他们还是保持着一些老习惯，比如穿衣打扮全凭随意，节俭简直成了比赛。（比如那个自信地穿着破衬衫的人）
还有，没错，用桶装着的饭菜通常真的很好吃！

Jesuan Wu
Well, the average income in 1997 was still like $150 per month wasn’t it?
Maybe not poor for China, but poor compared worldwide.

【答主回复】1997年的人均收入好像还是每月150美元左右吧？
对中国来说可能不算穷，但放到全世界范围来看还是很穷。
-----------------------

Assistant
China's military spending, which is officially reported at around 1.3% of its GDP, can be understood through several key factors:
* Economic Scale: China's GDP is the second largest in the world, so even a lower percentage can represent a substantial amount of money in absolute terms. For example, China's military budget is one of the highest globally, even if the percentage of GDP seems low.
* Different Defense Priorities: China's military strategy may differ from that of NATO countries. The focus might be on modernization and specific regional threats rather than extensive military engagement overseas. This can lead to a more efficient use of resources without needing to match NATO's spending levels.
* Investment in Technology: Rather than simply increasing spending as a percentage of GDP, China has been focusing on modernizing its military capabilities through technology and innovation. Investments in cyber warfare, missile technology, and naval power can yield significant improvements without proportionally increasing overall military expenditure.
* Regional Stability: China has historically prioritized economic development and regional stability over military expansion. This focus on economic growth can lead to lower military spending relative to GDP, as resources are allocated to other sectors.
* NATO Comparison: NATO's guideline of 2% of GDP for defense spending reflects the alliance's collective defense commitments and the need for member states to maintain ready forces for potential conflicts. In contrast, China's military strategy is more focused on deterrence and regional power projection, which may not necessitate the same level of spending.
* Domestic Priorities: China faces various domestic challenges, including poverty alleviation, infrastructure development, and healthcare. These priorities can influence the allocation of government funds, leading to comparatively lower military spending as a percentage of GDP.
In summary, while China's military spending as a percentage of GDP may appear low compared to NATO standards, the absolute figures and strategic focus reveal a different approach to national defense and security.

【回答】
中国官方公布的军事支出约占GDP的1.3%，可以通过几个关键因素来理解：
* 经济规模：中国的GDP是世界第二大，因此即使占比较低，绝对金额也非常可观。中国的军费支出在全球范围内名列前茅，即使其占GDP的比例看起来较低。
* 不同的防御重点：中国的军事战略可能与北约国家不同，更侧重于现代化建设和特定地区威胁，而不是大规模海外军事介入。这种做法可以更高效地利用资源，无需达到北约的支出水平。
* 科技投资：中国并不是单纯通过提高军费占GDP的比例来增强军力，而是注重通过技术和创新来实现军队现代化。在网络战、导弹技术和海军力量等方面的投资，可以在不大幅增加整体军费的情况下取得显著提升。
* 地区稳定：中国历来将经济发展和地区稳定置于军事扩张之上。对经济增长的重视使得军费占GDP的比例较低，因为资源被分配给了其他领域。
* 与北约的比较：北约要求成员国军费占GDP的2%，是出于集体防御的需要，以及成员国需保持随时应对潜在冲突的部队。而中国的军事战略则更侧重于威慑和地区力量投射，这可能不需要同等水平的军费支出。
* 国内优先事项：中国面临诸如扶贫、基础设施建设和医疗卫生等多种国内挑战。这些优先事项影响了政府资金的分配，导致军费占GDP的比例相对较低。
总之，虽然与北约标准相比，中国军费占GDP的比例看似较低，但从绝对值和战略重点来看，中国在国防和安全方面采取了不同的做法。

Sosow Nima Lives in China (1972–present)
There’s a rather strange phenomenon: I believe that in most major countries, when the government increases military spending, the public would generally oppose it, right?
China is the opposite.
I think at least 90% of the people are shouting: Increase the military budget!
The general consensus is to raise it by at least half again, meaning over 2.5% of GDP; the more radical voices demand 10%.
The main reason is the century of national humiliation, which has left us with a kind of PTSD — the sentiment being: “If we don’t increase military spending, are we just saving the money for the next indemnity payment?”
There’s no helping it.
When my kids studied modern Chinese history, their eyes turned red and they wept bitterly.
But in reality, maybe 1.3% is actually enough for now?
Comparisons with other countries don’t mean much. Germany and France combined have about 600 outdated tanks.
A single Chinese heavy combined-arms brigade has 6,000 personnel and is equipped with 507 tracked armored vehicles (including 112 main battle tanks, 104 infantry fighting vehicles, 14 armored reconnaissance vehicles, 60 self-propelled artillery pieces, 9 anti-tank missile launch vehicles, 18 self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, 4 air-defense missile vehicles, and 219 other types of armored vehicles), plus 597 trucks, 73 trailers, and 10,000 unmanned systems.
There are 29 such brigades.
There are another roughly 60 brigades with slightly less equipment.
If needed, raising 1,000 brigades wouldn’t be difficult — that’s only 6 million troops.

【回答】居住在中国（1972年 - 至今）
有一个相当奇怪的现象：我认为在大多数主要国家，政府一旦增加军费开支，公众一般都会反对，对吧？
中国却恰恰相反。
我觉得至少有90%的人都在喊：增加军费！
普遍共识是至少要涨一半，也就是超过GDP的2.5%；更激进的声音甚至要求涨到10%。
主要原因还是百年国耻，导致我们有点PTSD了，大家的心态就是：“不增加军费，难道是攒着钱留给下次赔款吗？”
没办法。
我家孩子学近代史的时候，眼睛都哭红了。
但实际上，现在1.3%或许已经够用了？
和其他国家比其实没啥意义。德国和法国加起来也就600辆老旧坦克。
中国一个重型合成旅有6000人，配备507辆履带装甲车辆（包括112辆主战坦克、104辆步兵战车、14辆装甲侦察车、60门自行火炮、9辆反坦克导弹发射车、18门自行高射炮、4辆防空导弹车、以及219辆其他类型装甲车辆），外加597辆卡车、73辆挂车和1万套无人系统。
这样的重型旅一共有29个。
还有大约60个装备稍弱一点的旅。
真要需要的话，拉出1000个旅也不难，也就是600万人。

So comparisons only make sense with the United States.
First of all, U.S. spending is calculated in dollars.
The purchasing power is completely different.
With what appears to be the same amount of money, China could produce 10 fighter jets while the U.S. could only produce one — really, I’m not making this up.
When I see how much many industrial products sell for in Europe and the U.S., I can’t help but think: “Evil capitalism!”
The prices are outrageous!
Sometimes I honestly feel like the U.S. has entered the late-Ming Dynasty stage.
For example, there’s this piece of tactical gear with a complicated name — but it’s basically just a handcart. And it costs USD 170,000.
Do you know how much USD 170,000 is?
That’s almost a Yangwang U9 luxury SUV!
(The Yangwang U9 is a Chinese luxury SUV unaffordable for most people. Rumor has it that a mysterious buyer in Mexico once ordered ten at once — everyone joked it must be a drug lord; no ordinary person could have that kind of money!)
(Or another example: a bag of screws for USD 90,000. A Taobao seller even used the picture for advertising, saying: “Same as used by U.S. Congressman Mike Waltz — only RMB 7.99 a bag!”)
I don’t know if it’s true, but it’s very possible.
China’s history has seen this sort of thing.
For example, Trump sent auditors twice to Afghanistan, and both mysteriously died.
The same happened in the Ming Dynasty: officials sent to audit accounts on the Liaodong front would always be “killed by bandits” along the way.
These “bandits” knew their routes inside out, were extremely capable fighters, and the escorts couldn’t resist them.
General Li Chengliang commanded what was then the Ming’s most battle-ready army, yet his headquarters in Tieling had 2,000 prostitutes…
One-third of the Ming’s revenue went to the Liaodong front. And the result? The national defense forces collaborated with Shanxi merchants to smuggle prohibited Suzhou steel to the enemy!
Well, there’s nothing new under the sun.
If the U.S. military has degenerated to the level of the late Ming, then yes — 1.3% of GDP for military spending would be more than enough.

所以说，只跟美国比才有意义。
首先，美国的军费是按美元算的。
购买力完全不同。
看着账面上花一样的钱，中国能造10架战机，美国可能只能造一架——真的不是我瞎说。
看到欧美很多工业品的售价，我经常忍不住感慨：“万恶的资本主义！”
价格简直离谱！
有时候我真觉得美国已经进入明末阶段了。
比如有种名字很复杂的战术装备，本质上其实就是手推车，售价17万美元。
你知道17万美元是多少钱吗？
那都快一辆仰望U9豪华SUV了！
（仰望U9是中国一款大部分人买不起的豪华SUV。据说墨西哥有个神秘买家一口气订了十辆，大家都开玩笑说肯定是毒枭，普通人哪有这么多钱！）
（还有例子：一包螺丝9万美元。淘宝有卖家还用这照片做广告，说：“同款，沃尔兹议员也在用，只要7.99元一包！”）
真假我不知道，但很有可能。
中国历史上也有这种事。
比如特朗普曾两次派审计员去阿富汗，结果都神秘死亡。
明朝时也一样，去辽东前线查账的官员总是半路“被土匪杀了”。
这些“土匪”对路线了如指掌，战斗力超强，护卫都挡不住。
李成梁总兵，手下是明朝最能打的军队，结果铁岭大营里竟然有两千妓女……
明朝三分之一的财政都砸在辽东，结果呢？守军和山西商人勾结，把禁运的苏州钢铁倒卖给敌人！
所以说，太阳底下没有新鲜事。
如果美国军队已经堕落到明末的地步，那1.3%的GDP军费其实绰绰有余了。
---------------------------

Chiang Seng Erh
Trump is the equivalent of China’s Chongzhen Emperor of the Ming Dynasty.

【回复】特朗普相当于中国明朝的崇祯皇帝。

Pin Yang
We chinese know the tax is better payed for military development than war reparations.

【回复】我们中国人知道，交税用于军事发展总比用来支付战争赔款要好。

Kent Abercrombie
China may very well be advancing its military, now, where it matters most, well offshore. It is highly unlikely that China will ever have to worry about an invasion; so, if it has tens of thousands of tanks and a few million soldiers, why invest in increasing something that is more than capable to perform. When it comes to military investment, technology sets the pace. Technology is advancing at such a pace that investing in marine weapons and/or aircraft, may move at a pace not designed by industrial capability but by advancement in technology; or why build more of something that will soon be eclipsed. China’s army is maxed out. China’s navy is maxed out. China’s air forces are maxed out. Select areas such as missile technology are maxed out and can only advance at a rate designed by technological superiority. Why build more of something that will soon be obsolete? China’s military will soon go through a refining phase an editing phase transforming it into a collection of surgical forces, each focused upon real threats and objectives. The taking over of the South China Sea will be the focus for the next era. Landing craft and support craft will either be used or threatened to be used in occupying the areas of land/ islands contested. Taiwan will probably never be attacked but will continue to be squeezed. China is developing economically South America and Africa. When these areas are solidified the ports and other areas owned by China can be militarized. The Chinese Navy will be able to resupply at ports around the world, just as it is possible for the US Navy to now do, just as it was possible at one time for the Royal Navy to do. Under the guise of protecting the world’s economies, China will equal and may surpass the West. What else do you do with 1.4 billion people and the soon to be largest economy in the world?

【回复】中国很可能正在大力发展其至关重要的远海军事力量。中国几乎无需担忧本土遭受入侵，既然已拥有数万辆坦克和数百万士兵，为何还要投资扩充本就绰绰有余的军力？
在军事投资方面，科技决定了发展速度。科技进步如此之快，投资于海军武器或飞机的发展，速度可能不再由工业能力决定，而是由科技进步推动；否则，为什么要制造更多很快就会被淘汰的装备呢？中国陆军的规模已经到顶了，中国海军也是如此，中国空军同样如此。一些关键领域，比如导弹技术，也已经达到了极限，接下来只能靠技术优势推进发展。为什么要制造更多即将过时的东西？中国军队很快会进入一个精细化、调整优化的阶段，转型成为一支由多个“外科手术式”部队组成的军队，每个部队都专注于真实威胁和具体目标。
下一阶段的重点将是南海的控制。登陆舰与支援舰将实际部署或威慑性部署于争议岛礁。台湾很可能永远不会遭到攻击，但会持续面临压力。
中国正在南美和非洲进行经济开发，一旦这些地区发展成熟后，中国拥有的港口和其他设施就可以实现军事化。届时，中国海军将能够像现在的美国海军那样在世界各地港口获得补给，正如当年英国皇家海军所能做到的一样。以“保护世界经济”为名，中国将会追平甚至超越西方。毕竟，拥有14亿人口和即将成为世界最大经济体的国家，还能有什么别的选择呢？

Arian Inigo
Sounds like one big game of weiqi.

【回复】听起来像是一场大型的围棋比赛。

Dishan
No one seriously believes china 1.3% claim except maybe the CCP bots

【回复】除了疑似中共的水军，没人会真正相信中国1.3%的说法。

Louis Friend
They lie. Since when did the CCP ever willingly reveal important information. Those n7mbers are propaganda.

【回复】他们在撒谎。中共什么时候主动公布过重要信息？那些数字都是宣传。

Arian Inigo
Makes sense. One has to do their research to know what’s going on. Why make it easy for the enemy to know your capabilities, even if you are perfectly capable of beating him in 10 out of 10 battles?

【回复】有道理。必须做好情报工作才能掌握局势。即便有十足把握每战必胜，又何必让对手轻易摸清你的底牌？

Andre Leong
“Comparisons with other countries don’t mean much. Germany and France combined have about 600 outdated tanks.”
Sigh, sadly I can't even disagree with you on this one lol. China has way more MBTs for sure, albeit with quite a few models of varying age, but still, they vastly outnumber what Germany and France have COMBINED which is pretty sad.
Publicly available estimates say china has a combined number of 600 type 99 or type 99A MBTs available, with numerous older models still in service as well.
Meanwhile looking at Germany it's a pretty sad situation as public estimates from last year suggest they only have 320 operational Leopard 2s, and it's not even clear on public information how many of those are the newer A7s, the cheaper A6s, or the older A5s.
Prior to 2023, operational readiness rates for the German military were abysmal, so it's possible only 40% of those tanks would have been operational anyway.
Germany is also supposed to be a continental power, whereas China before 2010 was still a poor country and had to split its budgets across the navy, air force and ground forces. Germany really should have been able to concentrate more on it's air and ground forces but it appears they foolishly let it collapse since the end of the cold war.

【回复】“和其他国家比其实没啥意义。德国和法国加起来也就600辆老旧坦克”
唉，遗憾的是，这点我也没法反驳你，哈哈。中国的主战坦克数量肯定多得多，虽然型号杂、服役年代跨度大，但数量远远超过德国和法国加起来的总和，这确实挺让人难过的。
公开资料显示，中国现役的99式或99A式主战坦克大约有600辆，还有很多更老的型号也在服役。
反观德国，情况就挺惨淡了。去年的公开估算显示，德国现役的豹2主战坦克只有320辆，而且公开资料还不清楚这其中有多少是最新的A7型，多少是价格相对便宜的A6型，或者更老的A5型。
2023年前，德国军队的装备妥善率非常糟糕，所以其实这些坦克中可能只有40%真的能开动。
德国本该是个大陆强国，而中国在2010年以前还是个穷国，军费还要分给海军、空军和陆军。按理说，德国本应该能把更多资源投入到空军和陆军，结果却从冷战结束后就愚蠢地让这一切慢慢崩塌了。

Rihaan Tove
I want an indo-chinese-russian alliance, a Eurasian NATO. Such an alliance would be unbreakable by any other power or alliance, even if the entire rest of the world allied against it. The indo Pacific and Arctic would be definitely in control of the eurasian alliance and that means almost all the world's oil and trade lanes will be under control. I wish BRICS is the spark to light this wonderful fire.

【回复】我希望能有一个印中俄联盟，一个欧亚版的北约。这样的联盟将是其他任何国家或联盟都无法撼动的，即使全世界其他国家联合起来对抗它也无济于事。欧亚联盟肯定能掌控印太地区和北极，这也意味着几乎所有的世界石油和贸易航道都将被掌控。我希望金砖国家能成为点燃这场美好火焰的火花。

Chong S Lim
You know what? Let’s increase war and weapons spending to 10% and conquer the world. Thats what all those white people and Indians people are accusing the Chinese of doing. They are already making you do the time, just go ahead and do the crime.

【回复】你知道吗？那我们就把战争和武器的开支提高到10%，去征服世界吧。反正那些白人和印度人都在指责中国人在做这些事。他们都已经给你定罪了，干脆就把“罪名”坐实了。
----------------------

Michael X
First, there are no country that can threaten China on the land. There is only one "hostile" neighbor, India, which isn't a real threat. This allows China to cut its landforce significantly. Prior to 1991, the landforce had around 6 million personals, now it is only 1 million. Within that one million, it is mostly reserves and armed police. All Chinese land borders are de-militarized except the Indian border.
Second, the massive expansion of road/railways networks and airlift allows a really smaller landforce to cover an extremely large area. This allows China to cut its landforce further.
Third, a lot of US's military budget were spent on maintaining its aging cold war nuclear arsenal, China doesn't have a massive nuclear arsenal.
Fourth, China doesn't have to maintain 800 military bases around the world, and a shit ton of aging equipments.
Fifth, China has commercial industries that can lower the cost of purchasing military equipments, such as shipbuilding, automobile...etc. For example, the san antonio class LPD cost 10 times more than its Chinese equivalent 071 LPD. The US military budget can be lowered significantly, if it purchases from China.

【回答】
首先，没有哪个国家能在陆地上威胁中国。唯一一个“敌对”邻国是印度，但印度并不是真正的威胁。这让中国能够大幅削减陆军兵力。在1991年之前，陆军兵力大约有600万人，现在只有100万人左右。在这100万人中，大多数是预备役和武警。除了与印度的边界外，中国所有陆地边界都已非军事化。
其次，大规模扩展的公路、铁路网络和空运能力使得更少的陆军兵力就能覆盖极其广阔的区域，这进一步让中国能够缩减陆军规模。
第三，美国大量军事预算都花在维护其老化的冷战时期核武库上，而中国没有庞大的核武库。
第四，中国无需在全球维持800个军事基地，也不用维护大量老旧装备。
第五，中国有发达的商业产业，可以降低采购军事装备的成本，比如造船、汽车等。例如，美国圣安东尼奥级两栖船坞运输舰的造价是中国071型的10倍。如果美国从中国采购装备，其军费预算可以大幅降低。
----------------------

Hu Shi Xiong
Hardware allows one to maximise the use of their manpower, enough people did military service for conversion into a defensive militia in case of an invasion anyway .
No one can really launch an amphibious invasion of china .

【回复】硬件能够让人最大化地利用人力资源，反正有足够多人服过兵役，可以在被入侵时转化为防御民兵。
其实没有哪个国家真的能对中国发动两栖入侵。

Felix Su
If you use public sources from China, China has at least several thousand thermonuclear warheads.
And they are all deployed. Which means that China has more warheads deployed than the US or Russia because they are still under the START 2 treaty.
China’s nuclear arsenal doesn’t need the type of maintenance that the US ones do because the US’s design is dated and they never changed it. US designs required almost yearly tritium reload. China’s doesn’t due to superior design.
This reloading of tritium is expensive as it requires the warhead to be removed from the missile, taken to a facility that can store and reload the tritium. Then taken to another facility to reattach the warhead on the missile.
You would think they would change the design but they haven’t yet.

【回复】如果你查阅中国的公开资料，中国至少拥有几千枚热核弹头，而且这些弹头都已经部署。这意味着中国部署的弹头数量比美国或俄罗斯还多，因为美俄还受制于《第二阶段削减战略武器条约》（START 2）。
中国的核武库并不需要像美国那样频繁的维护，因为美国的核弹头设计较为陈旧，从未更换过。美国的设计几乎每年都需要重新装填氚，而中国的弹头由于设计更先进则不需要这么做。
重新装填氚的过程非常昂贵，因为这需要先将弹头从导弹上拆下，送到专门可以储存和装填氚的设施，然后再送到另一个设施把弹头重新安装回导弹上。
你可能会觉得他们早该更换设计了，但他们至今还没有这么做。

Alset Alokin
6th and most importantly, less corruption in supply chain

【回复】第六，也是最重要的一点，供应链中的腐败更少。
-----------------------------

Xb Liu Lives in China (1983–present)
Because China is the world's largest manufacturing country, all the costs are the lowest. Let me put it this way: The war between Russia and Ukraine has been going on for over three years, but the total amount of ammunition consumed is less than the amount of gunpowder used by the Chinese people for fireworks during just one night during the Chinese New Year.
All weapons in China can be produced domestically, while for the weapons production of NATO countries, much of it still requires assistance from China. For instance, the UK has even dismantled its last steel mill, and what's more, it no longer has any weapons production capabilities.
China doesn't have such extensive forms of corruption as in the West. Just look at the absurd purchasing practices of the US military, and you'll understand how much of the military expenditure in Western countries is embezzled.

【回答】住在中国（1983年 - 至今）
因为中国是世界上最大的制造业国家，所有的成本都是最低的。这样说吧：俄乌战争已经打了三年多，但消耗弹药的总量还不如中国人在春节一晚放烟花用的火药量多。
中国所有的武器都可以自主生产，而北约国家的武器生产，很多还需要中国的帮助。比如英国，甚至已经拆除了最后一座钢铁厂，更不用说已经没有任何武器生产能力了。
中国不像西方那样存在广泛的腐败现象。看看美国军队那些荒唐的采购行为，你就知道西方国家的军费有多少被贪污了。

John Pryor
Simple answer is you only want as much as you need military spending has a negative effect on the economy so if you want to grow your economy keep it to the minimum needed. China seems to use the model grow the economy & increase military spending in keeping with it so you can afford it without issue.
The other factor is China can produce military equipment a lot cheaper both through manufacturing & they don’t seem very wasteful with R&D either. In effect they get far more bang for their buck than the US who waste billions due to political meddling & overruns. The US also has very high overheads aircraft carrier groups cost around $5 million a day, estimates vary but maintaining military bases $100 billion a year, maintaining the huge nuclear arsenal is another $100 billion.
Can you see how the economy suffers with high military spending that’s $200 billion that could have been put into things like education & infrastructure like the Chinese have been doing.

【回答】
简单来说，你只需要维持所需的最低军费开支就行了，因为军费开支对经济有负面影响，所以如果你想让经济增长，就把军费开支控制在最低限度。中国似乎采用的是“先发展经济，再相应增加军费开支”的模式，这样可以在不影响经济的情况下负担得起。
另一个因素是，中国能以更低的成本生产军事装备，无论是制造还是研发方面，他们似乎都不怎么浪费。实际上，他们用同样的钱能获得比美国多得多的效果，而美国因为政治干预和超支浪费了数十亿美元。美国的开销也非常高，比如一个航母战斗群每天就要花费大约500万美元，维护军事基地每年大约1000亿美元，维护庞大的核武库又是1000亿美元。
你能看出高军费开支对经济的影响了吗？这2000亿美元本可以像中国那样，用于教育和基础设施建设。

Qi Chen Electrical Engineer (2017–present)
Question: Why does China spend so little money on military （1.3% of their GDP）? This is even far lower than the minimum requirement of NATO.
Answer: Because that’s sufficient.
Post Cold War, most of the world has gone into the full corruption mode, aka, they spend a lot of money, but produce very little actual gear. The official reason is that the higher technological level means more expensive, but the real reason is that most nations has way too many people treating military purchase as a cash cow instead of something vital for ensure your nation’s strength.
Back in 2011, when J-20 just took off. The English media immediately started claiming it will cost 100 million USD per aircraft.
And the stated reason is:
In terms of the cost of individual aircraft, we think it reasonable to assume the J-20 has a unit cost of somewhere from US$100-to-$120 million. While a variety of factors make the exact cost extremely difficult to assess, for the purposes of very rough comparison this offers a useful benchmark. By contrast, the F-22 costs around US$143 million per plane, and the F-35A US$111.6 million, according to DoD and the National Defense Industry Association. Russia’s T-50 costs “less than US$100 million per plane,” according to RIA Novosti.
Basically, J-20 is assumed to cost 100 million USD, because F-22 cost 143 million USD per plane.
What’s the problem? Because F-22 didn’t start out costing that much.
In fact, in 1995, when Lockheed Martin and US military negotiated the deal, F-22’s cost was 34.5 million USD per plane.
Later on, due to cancellation of order, cost over run and a number of other problem, that’s when F-22’s price inflated to 143 million.
In other word, guessing how much J-20 cost using F-22’s price tag is completely BS, because F-22’s cost in 2010 is hardly because how much it actual cost to make plane and everything to do with bad project management, broken contract and corruption.
This is why I always insisted that J-20’s true cost is probably in 15~20 million USD per aircraft range.
BTW, there are plenty similar and extremely stupid guess floating around the English web, for example:
1. J-16 was guessed to cost 64 million USD per aircraft, because India’s imported Su-30MKI cost 50 million USD per plane.
2. Type 055 was guessed to cost 920 million USD per ship, because US’ Arleigh Burke cost 2.5 billion USD per ship.
3. The Type 099 tank was guessed to cost 2 million USD per tank, because US’ M1A1 cost $4.3 million per tank.
To be fair, the 055 cruiser and 099 tank cost is not too unreasonable, but the price guess for J-16 is just plain dumb. India? Seriously?
This is also why China only has a military budget only about 1.6% of it GDP and yet is making 100+ J-20 per year.
Duh, when your advanced and fully upgraded heavy fighter only cost 1/5 or less than your opponent’s outdated medium fighter, then 1.6% GDP as military budget is really all you need.

【回答】电气工程师（2017年 - 至今）
问题：中国为什么在军事上花这么少的钱（只占GDP的1.3%）？这甚至远低于北约的最低要求。
回答：因为这已经足够了。
冷战结束后，世界大部分国家都进入了彻底的腐败模式，也就是说，花了很多钱，但实际上制造的装备却很少。官方理由是技术水平越高，成本就越贵，但实际上，大多数国家有太多人把军购当成“摇钱树”，而不是确保国家实力的重要事务。
2011年，当歼-20刚首飞时，英文媒体立刻宣称它每架要花1亿美元。
他们给出的理由是：
“就单架飞机的成本而言，我们认为歼-20的单价大致在1亿至1.2亿美元之间。虽然各种因素让确切成本很难评估，但为了大致比较，这个估算足够用了。相比之下，据美国国防部和国家防务工业协会称，F-22每架约1.43亿美元，F-35A每架1.116亿美元。俄罗斯的T-50据俄新社说‘每架不到1亿美元’。”
基本上，歼-20之所以被认为要1亿美元，只是因为F-22每架1.43亿美元。
问题出在哪里？F-22最初可没那么贵。
实际上，1995年洛马公司和美军谈判时，F-22每架报价是3450万美元。
后来因为订单被取消、成本超支和一堆其他问题，F-22的价格才涨到1.43亿美元。
换句话说，用F-22的价格来猜歼-20的成本完全是胡说八道，因为2010年F-22的价格根本不是制造飞机的实际成本，而是项目管理差、合同烂和腐败造成的。
所以我一直坚持认为，歼-20的真实成本很可能在每架1500万到2000万美元之间。
顺便说一下，英文网上还有很多类似极其愚蠢的猜测，比如：
1. 歼-16被猜每架6400万美元，因为印度进口的苏-30MKI每架5000万美元。
2. 055型被猜每艘9.2亿美元，因为美国的阿利·伯克级每艘25亿美元。
3. 99式坦克被猜每辆200万美元，因为美国M1A1坦克每辆430万美元。
公平地说，055和99式的价格猜测还算说得过去，但歼-16的估计纯属无稽之谈。印度？认真的？
这也是为什么中国军费只占GDP的1.6%，却每年能造100多架歼-20。
很简单，当你的先进且全面升级的重型战斗机，成本只有对手过时的中型战斗机的五分之一甚至更低时，那么军费预算占GDP的1.6%确实就够用了。