[2020-02-23]中国在军事上还要多久才能超过美国？

Chauncey Richburg , worked at U.S. Army (2004-2007)
That question could only be answered by seeing the Chinese military in action against the US. It is pure speculation to ask when the Chinese can match American military capability. The US spends a lot on its military forces which means that technological speaking, the US military will have access to cutting edge military technology. Its armed forces have been in various conflicts off and on for the past 29 years (starting in Desert Storm). Combat experience matters a great deal in determining the current and future military capability of any military force and the Chinese have not had that experience recently. The US has the edge in missiles and missile defense technology over the Chinese. The US has 800 military bases. The Chinese military does not have those advantages so I could argue that the Chinese even with their reconomic growth and burgeoning global power status can never match US military capabilites from an economic and experience standpoint.

Chauncey Richburg 2004-2007年在美国陆军服役
只有看到中国军队对美国采取行动，才能回答这个问题。 问中国什么时候能与美国的军事实力相匹敌纯属猜测。 美国在军事力量上花了很多钱，这意味着从技术上讲，美国军方将获得尖端的军事技术。 在过去的29年中(从沙漠风暴开始) ，它的军队断断续续地参与各种冲突。 作战经验对于决定任何军队当前和未来的军事能力非常重要，而中国最近没有这种经验。 美国在导弹和导弹防御技术方面比中国更有优势。 美国有800个军事基地。 中国军队没有这些优势，所以我可以说，即使中国经济增长迅速，全球实力地位不断提升，但从经济和经验的角度来看，它永远无法与美国的军事能力相匹敌。

RK Sharma
Never. If USA does not add anything in its arsenal and China keeps on adding as per present pace, it may take twenty years for China to come to the level of present USA.
Knowing China’s ambitions on this field, USA will not sit quietly and will also further strengthen its military. Military strengthening was in Mr Trump’s election promises and he has already taken this step in the budget.
To dominate the world militarily, China has been taking all steps to befriend Russia and win it over on its side through its economic strength. Had they succeeded (they could in future), they would already be dominating the world and in the present North Korean crisis, they could have told USA to shut up.
President Trump, due to his business background, very well understands as to how cartel formations make businesses dominant. He saw the same happening between China and Russia ( not in business but in dominating the world), in the most potent proportion, involving economic and military strength. Therefore, all through, he has been trying to woo Russia. If he succeeds weaning away Russia, China’s dream to dominate the world will remain a dream only. Trump’s opponents and most of their supporters do not understand these international cartelizations (it is true that hatred limits mental abilities) and are still busy with their Cold War era rhetoric that Russia is USA’s No. 1 Enemy. Let us wish that almost all Americans see this danger and cooperate with President Trump in his right actions in this regard.

RK Sharma
永远不会超过。如果美国不增加任何军火库，而中国继续按照目前的速度增加军火库，中国可能需要二十年才能达到现在美国的水平。
了解到中国在这个领域的野心，美国不会坐视不管的，还会进一步加强其军事实力。加强军事力量是特朗普先生竞选时的承诺，他已经在预算中采取了这一举措。
为了在军事上主导世界，中国一直在采取一切措施与俄罗斯交好，并通过其经济实力赢得俄罗斯的支持。 如果他们成功了(他们将来可能会成功) ，他们那时就会统治世界，而在目前的朝鲜危机中，他们本可以告诉美国闭嘴。
特朗普总统，由于他的商业背景，非常清楚国际企业联盟是如何让企业占据主导地位的。他看到中国和俄罗斯之间也发生了同样的事情(不是在商业方面，而是在统治世界方面) ，其中涉及经济和军事实力的部分最大。因此，自始至终，他都在努力讨好俄罗斯。 如果他成功地让俄罗斯离开，中国统治世界的梦想将仅仅是一个梦想。 特朗普的反对者和他们的大多数支持者不理解这些国际企业联盟(仇恨确实限制了精神方面的能力) ，仍然忙于他们在冷战时期的言论，即俄罗斯是美国的头号敌人。 让我们希望几乎所有美国人都能看到这种危险，并与特朗普总统站一起，在这方面采取正确的行动。

Cheung Luke , Investment Manager at China-africa XY Investment Ltd. (2014-present)
It depends on when China surpasses America economically..Basically, military strength is a function of past military expenditure. Now US has a military expenditure of roughly $600B,contrast China’s $150B.
Consider other factors:
* China provides their defense companies tax credits/subsidiaries( not included in military budgets), in other words, actual Chinese military budget is larger than nominal one.
* US is a global military power, it cannot commit majority of its power in East Asia.
My best guess is
* Chinese military power can only match or surpass American military in a considerably period of time(maybe more than 30 years) after its GDP surpasses USA (assuming that China can maintain a good GDP growth rate, which is quite unlikely).
* America’s chance to score a clear win in East Asia will diminish well before that happens( because America need to deal with global threats and can’t focus 80% of its power there).

Cheung Luke ，中非XY投资有限公司投资经理(2014年至今)
这取决于中国什么时候在经济上超过美国。基本上，军事力量是过去军费开支的函数。如今，美国的军费开支约为6000亿美元，而中国只有1500亿美元。
考虑其他因素：
* 中国向其国防企业/子公司提供税收抵免 (不包括在军事预算中) ，换句话说，中国实际军事预算大于名义军事预算。
* 美国是一个全球军事大国，它不能把大部分军事力量投入东亚。
我的猜测是：
* 中国的国内生产总值超过美国(假设中国能够保持良好的国内生产总值增长率，但这不太可能)之后，中国的军事实力可能在相当长的一段时间内(也许超过30年)赶上或超过美国的军事实力。
* 在此之前，美国在东亚的赢面将大大减少(因为美国需要应对全球威胁，不能把80% 的力量集中在那里)。

Jingwei Yang , Chinese living in China
Not in the foreseeable future.
China’s arms production speed has surpassed the US now. China builds more warships, tanks, artillery and fighter planes than the US, but it needs time to accumulate these military assets. The US spent 9% of its GDP on military in cold war era, and is still using the huge inventory built back then. Most of its military assets, carriers, tanks, satellites and bombers, were made in cold war era.
It will take at least another two decades for China to accumulate enough military assets and for the US to wear out those old equipments.
But within the next decade, China and the US will start to negotiate an arms control agreement, which will enable China to have enough capability to defend itself, safeguard shipping lines and retake Taiwan, and enable the US to have enough capability to wage another war in middle east, and keep the USD as the legal tender to trade oil.

Jingwei Yang 生活在中国的中国人
在可预见的未来不会。
中国现在的武器生产速度已经超过了美国。 中国制造的军舰、坦克、大炮和战斗机比美国多，但它需要时间来积累这些军事资产。 冷战时期，美国将其国内生产总值的9% 用于军事，并且仍在使用当时建造的大量库存。 它的大部分军事资产，航空母舰、坦克、卫星和轰炸机，都是在冷战时期制造的。
中国至少还需要20年才能积累足够的军事资产，而美国则需要20年才能耗尽这些陈旧的装备。
但在未来十年内，中国和美国将开始谈判一项军备控制协议，这将使中国有足够的能力保卫自己，维护航运公司和收复台湾，并使美国有足够的能力在中东发动另一场战争，并保持美元作为石油贸易的法定货币。

So China will not surpass the US militarily in the foreseeable future. Both countries will work together to constrain rampant arms race.
In the unforeseeable future, military forces in both countries will decline I think. War is no longer a profitable business even for the US. Nobody invests in a losing business model. It takes only one more failed war for the US to lose appetite for military forces (spend lives and money for nothing).
You see the nuclear submarine graveyard in Russia? That is the future of military assets in both countries.

因此，在可预见的未来，中国不会在军事上超过美国。 两国将共同努力遏制猖獗的军备竞赛。
我认为，在不可预见的未来，两国的军事力量都将下降。 即使对美国来说，战争也不再是一项有利可图的生意。 没有人会投资一种失败的商业模式。 只要再打一场失败的战争，美国就会对军事力量失去兴趣(白白浪费生命和钱)
你看到俄罗斯的核潜艇墓地了吗？ 这就是两国军事资产的未来。

Jerry Mc Kenna , Registered voter since 1972
I think it will take quite a while, because the US has that emotional need to be first. China does not. They have a large army that can stop an invasion and they have a large country that cannot be hurt by a few nuclear weapons.
I don’t think the Chinese want to surpass the US, I think the leaders are more sensible than our. There is an assumption in the US that our military technology is a huge asset, and that was certainly true in the past. The modern computer is an outgrowth of military research. Our leadership in aeronautics is also a result of military technology. China has grown without being a technology leader and it doesn’t have a huge war to push it in that direction.
If you want a guess, I would suggest that it will take at least until 2040 to ‘surpass’ the US. That is based on articles saying the China’s air force will be the size of that of US in 2030 and at the same time seeing articles saying that this will never happen. All those articles are simply propaganda. The ones saying it won’t happen sound to me like fear that it will.

Jerry Mc Kenna ，自1972年以来登记为选民
我认为这需要相当长的一段时间，因为美国在情感上需要成为第一。 而中国则不然。 他们有一支庞大的军队可以阻止入侵，他们还有一个不会被几枚核武器伤害的大国。
我不认为中国想要超越美国，我认为中国领导人比我们更聪明。 在美国有一种假设，即我们的军事技术是一项巨大的资产，这在过去肯定是正确的。 现代计算机就是军事研究的产物。 我们在航空领域的领先地位也是军事技术的结果。 中国在成长过程中并没有成为技术领导者，也没有一场大规模的战争将其推向这个方向。
如果你想要猜测的话，我觉得中国至少要到2040年才能‘超过’美国。 这是基于文章说中国的空军将在2030年达到美国的规模，同时又看到文章说这永远不会发生。 所有这些文章都只是宣传。 那些说它不会发生的人，听上去就像是害怕这会发生。

Yevgeniy Leto
A very very long time if not forever. The main reason is that China isn’t interested in this. One needs to spend some on defense, so one doesn’t get bullied or invaded, but beyond that, it is a waste of money.
look at the life cycle of a weapon, say a tank. You spend a huge amount of brain power and talent to design it, a huge amount of man power and other precious resources to manufacture it. You use petrol to train your soldiers to use it. And then you put it in Arizona desert and hoping you never have to use it. What practical good does it do to the ordinary people in the country?
The U.S. Army's Huge Tank Stockpile in the California Desert
and this is exactly what President Carter told Trump when Trump became President.

Yevgeniy Leto
需要一段非常非常长的时间，如果不是永远的话。主要原因是中国对此不感兴趣。一个国家需要在防御上花一些钱，这样他就不会被欺负或者被入侵，但是除此之外，就是浪费金钱了。
看看武器的生命周期，比如说坦克。 你花费了大量的脑力和人才去设计它，花费了大量的人力和其他宝贵的资源去制造它。 你用光了汽油来训练士兵。然后你把它放在亚利桑那州的沙漠里，希望你永远不会用到它。它对这个国家的普通百姓有什么实际好处？
看看美军在加利福尼亚沙漠大量的坦克储备。
这正是卡特总统在特朗普当选总统时告诉特朗普的。

Phen Su , Historian
Has exceeded.
Because China's goals are different from those of the United States. The United States is a global strategy and China is a regional strategy.
The Chinese people's view of war is defensive, they never actively attack other people.
Ancient China spent 1,000 years building the Great Wall to defend nomadic peoples.
The enemy of modern China has become a maritime nation, so China built the Great Wall at Sea and invested a lot of A2 / AD.
If the U.S. forces want a war in East Asia, China can destroy all U.S. military assets in the region, including bases in Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Guam.
Even China has built the Great Wall for nuclear war.
This is also the core philosophy of Sun Tzu ’s Art of War. Only by actively preparing for war can we stop it.

Phen Su 、历史学家
已经超过了。
因为中国的目标与美国不同。 美国是全球战略，中国是区域战略。
中国人的战争观是防御性的，他们从不主动攻击别人。
古代中国花了1000年建造长城来保卫自己免受游牧民族的入侵。
近代中国的敌人已经变成了一个海洋国家，所以中国建造了海上长城，并在区域阻绝武器投入了大量资金。
如果美军希望在东亚发动战争，中国可以摧毁美国在该地区的所有军事资产，包括在日本、韩国、菲律宾和关岛的基地。
甚至中国也为核战争筑起了长城。
这也是《孙子兵法》的核心哲学。只有积极准备战争，才能有效制止战争。

Michael Craven , 63 yrs of human experiences & observations of people.
Rand, FAS and Nationmaster and several other sources would be excellent places to begin your research. Stay away from pundit sites as they only care about their ratings and not the dissemination of information.
According to Global Firepower though, considering firepower, financial resources, standing armies, reserves, air power, naval presence, natural resources, industry, and several other factors
They come in ranked as follows:
#1 US #2 Russia #3 China
I would suspect that in areas of technology it would depend on how quick they are at reverse engineering our stuff.
Strategy and tactics, unsure as I haven’t looked at any of the writings of their generals, or even if they do that sort of thing. And how their politics effects the freedom to innovate in these two areas.

Michael Craven 63年的人类经验和对人类的观察
Rand、FAS 和 Nationmaster 以及其他一些资源，都是你开始研究的好网站。远离那些所谓的权威网站，因为他们只关心自己的评级，而不是信息的传播。
根据《全球火力》的数据，考虑到火力，财政资源，常备军，预备役，空军力量，海军存在，自然资源，工业等几个因素，它们的排名是这样：1美国，2俄罗斯，3中国
我怀疑，在技术领域，这取决于他们对我们东西的逆向工程有多快。
关于战略和战术，我不确定，因为我没有看过他们将军的任何著作，甚至不知道他们是否有这些东西。以及他们的政治如何影响这两个方面的创新自由。

While totalitarian states are highly disciplined, I believe that over stressing discipline may work against them.
In WWII allied forces, and if anyone reading this, knows otherwise, please correct me, when an officer in charge was wounded or killed, if there wasn’t one nearby, the senior enlisted person would step up and begin leading the unit.
Whereas, the Germans and Japanese, though I would think the Germans moreso, if their officer in charge was wounded or killed, they would get to safety and let the people up the chain of command know that their leader was wounded or killed and then ask for a replacement.
I’m also not saying this happened in all cases. As leaders are leaders and would make their case, gain the concensus and move on, regardless of what army we’re talking about. But I definately see the style of government as a hindering factor.
I believe the same to be true in the PLA. Political “over-structuring, over-disciplining, and a sense that only the higher ups are the only ones with the answers” may hinder their progress as a super-power.
But please keep in mind, that while they are improving, so are we.

尽管极权主义国家是高度自律的，但我认为过分强调纪律可能对它们不利。在第二次世界大战的盟军中，如果有人读到这篇评论，知道其他的情况，请纠正我。当一个军官受伤或者被杀，如果附近没有一个军官，高级士兵就会站出来领导这个部队。
然而，德国人和日本人，尽管我认为更多的是德国人，如果他们的指挥官受伤或死亡，他们会退到安全的地方，让上级知道他们的指挥官受伤或死亡，然后要求换人。
我也不是说在所有情况下都会发生。 因为领导者就是领导者，不管我们谈论的是什么军队，他们都会表明自己的立场，获得共识，然后继续前进。但我肯定地认为，政府的风格是一个阻碍因素。
我相信解放军也是如此。 政治上的“过度组织化、过度约束化，以及只有上级才是唯一知道答案的人”可能会阻碍他们成为超级大国的进步。但是请记住，当他们在改善的时候，我们也在改善

Charles Ringling , former US Navy at United States Navy (1984-1998)
In numbers china and russia has surpassed the US. Because the US builds its own equipment and the GDP of the US is the highest on the planet the cost is much higher. In percentage of GDP we spend much less than them, only 1.7% of your GDP is on defense and over 5% with russia and china.
Thier technology is behind us by about 10–50 years though on many things, like rocket science. But a mire solid defence spending is a good thing also. Most modern day inventions came from US defense spending like the internet, jets, radios and most emergency medical sciences to name a few.

Charles Ringling 、前美国海军(1984-1998)
在数量上，中国和俄罗斯已经超过了美国。 因为美国自己制造设备，而且美国的 GDP 是全球最高的，所以成本要高得多。在 GDP 中，我们花费的比例远远低于他们，只有1.7% 的 GDP 用于国防，而俄罗斯和中国超过5%。
他们的技术落后于我们大约10-50年，在许多方面，比如火箭科学。 但是稳定的国防开支也是一件好事。 大多数现代发明都来自美国的国防研发，比如互联网、飞机、收音机和大多数紧急医疗科学等等。

Jesuan Wu
A long time I think.
China has zero intention on military dominance. As their 2000 year old book “the Art of War” says, the best way to fight a war is not having to fight it at all. Never once in the existence of the Chinese civilization did it seek military dominance of its known world, never.
So the only way China will surpass the US is that it does so passively, that the Chinese economy and technology has developed to such an advanced state, that while China doesn't stress itself, the US still cannot keep up. Having 4 times as much population, I'd say when China reaches technological parity with the US, or near parity, then China would have surpassed the US militarily, given the 4 times factor.

Jesuan Wu
我想需要很长时间。
中国对军事主导地位没有任何兴趣。 正如他们两千年前的著作《孙子兵法》所说，打仗的最好方式就是根本不用打仗。 在中华文明的历史上，它从来没有谋求过在已知世界的军事统治地位，从来没有。
因此，中国超越美国的唯一途径就是被动的，中国的经济和技术已经发展到如此先进的地步，以至于中国不用强调自己，美国仍然跟不上。 我认为，既然中国的人口是美国的4倍，那么当中国在技术上与美国平起平坐时，或者接近，考虑到4倍的因素，中国的军事力量那时就会超过美国。

Bob MacKenzie , former Business Owner and Manager (1973-2019)
They do not have to catch up to the US and it would be a waste of time and money to be bothered.
They already have enough military power to seriously damage all of the continental US. That is all they need to keep the US military meatheads in line.
They use all that extra time and money building their people stronger instead of marginalizing them to support an over blown useless musclebound military.
The US military is a joke. It can only be used against a non-nuclear target country. They can’t even risk taking a crack at North Korea as long as they have nukes.

Bob MacKenzie 、前企业主及经理(1973-2019)
他们不必超过美国，这是一种浪费时间和金钱的麻烦。
他们已经拥有足够的军事力量来严重破坏整个美国大陆。 这就是他们要让美国军方的笨蛋们，守规矩所需要的。
他们利用所有额外的时间和金钱来让他的人民变得更强大，而不是把他们边缘化，来支持一支没用的肌肉过度发达的军队。
美国军队就是个玩笑。它只能用来对付无核的目标国家。 只要他们拥有了核武器，他们甚至不敢冒险试探朝鲜。

Dion Shaw
Quite a while. America has 12 aircraft carriers. China has one. PLA navy has 68 submarines, a combination of nuclear and diesel power. It has no ballistic missile submarines. The U.S. navy has 66 submarines, all nuclear powered; 18 are ballistic missile submarines.
China has superior numbers in ground forces, but the population is much higher than America.
Nuclear weapons. China is estimated to have less than 300 while the United States has roughly 4000.
America spends much more on its military than China does and the U.S. has bases around the globe. China has very limited foreign bases.

Dion Shaw
很长一段时间。 美国有12艘航空母舰，而中国只有一艘。中国海军拥有68艘核动力和柴油动力相结合的潜艇。它没有弹道导弹潜艇。 美国海军拥有66艘核动力潜艇，其中18艘是弹道导弹潜艇。
中国的地面部队数量优势明显，但人口数量远高于美国。
核武器。 据估计，中国的核武器数量不足300枚，而美国大约有4000枚。
美国在军事上的花费比中国多得多，而且美国在全球都有军事基地。中国的外国基地非常有限。

Wang Xuemang , Operator/ Product Manager (2017-present)
If you mean the global dominant ability like US in 1990s, maybe never. The time of the sole-polar world has passed.
If you mean the military of China gains victory over US in an full-blown war, 100 years later, for China is still a lot shorter in nuclear arsenal than US and China is not keen in expanding such arsenal.
If you mean the military of China gains victory over US in open sea water, 1 vs 1, no nukes, maybe 50 years later.

Wang Xuemang ，操作员 / 产品经理(2017年至今)
如果你指的是像上世纪90年代美国那样的全球主导能力，那么也许永远不会超过。单极世界的时代已经过去了。
如果你指的是中国军队能在一场全面战争中战胜了美国，那么是100年后，因为中国的核武库仍然比美国少得多，而且中国也不热衷于扩大核武库。
如果你指的是中国军队在公海战胜美国，一对一，没有使用核武器，也许50年后。

Tao Peng
The lead of the US military power is so big that no any country could catch up in 30 years, even if the US stands still during that period and doesn’t do anything else to slow down that country. In reality, the US is still advancing much faster than all other countries. If, somehow China’s advancement suddenly shoots up quickly, the US has tons of ways to slow it down.

Tao Peng
美国军事力量的领先地位非常大，以至于任何国家都无法在30年内赶上，即使美国在那段时间里完全不发展，没有采取任何其他措施来减缓这个国家的步伐。实际上，美国的发展速度仍远远快于其它所有国家。 如果中国的发展突然快速增长，美国有很多方法来减缓它。

Peter Elliott
There’s not a competition there. China pursues military might to defend its shores, the US pursues it for geopolitical power. The makeup of their respective militaries don’t really cross over enough to provide competition.
China has the better defensive military, the US has the better shock and awe force. That’s not likely to ever change given the nature of their history and their mindsets.

Peter Elliott
这没有什么竞争。中国追求军事实力来保卫自己的海岸，而美国则追求地缘政治实力。他们各自军队的组成，并没有真正的相关来竞争。
中国有更好的防御性军事力量，美国有更好的震慑力量。考虑到他们的历史和心态，这种情况不太可能改变。

Vince Dhimos , Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
Before the coronavirus outbreak, it would have been relatively easy to calculate that based on the roughly 6.9% annual GDP growth and based on the low US growth rate hovering a little over 2%. Without the coronavirus, China would have caught up very soon. Now the results hang in the balance.

Vince Dhimos ，《新丝绸战略》总编辑(2016年至今)
在冠状病毒爆发之前，根据每年大约6.9% 的 GDP 增长率，以及徘徊在略高于2% 的美国经济增长率，计算这个时间相对比较容易。 如果没有冠状病毒，中国很快就会迎头赶上。现在结果就不明确了。

Peter Campbell , learns about China, chinese and chinese food
China is building up its airforce and navy commensurate with its needs.
This encourages the USA to spend more and more eon expensive high tech weapons.
China is a commercial power not a military one and has no intention of overtaking America in this sphere. Their aim I str drive the US to bankruptcy similar ot wha tPresident Reagan did to the old USSR.

Peter Campbell ，了解中国，中国人和中国食品
中国正在建设与其需求相对应的空军和海军。
这促使美国在昂贵的高科技武器上花费越来越多的钱。
中国是一个商业大国，而不是军事大国，在军事这一块无意超越美国。他们的目标是使美国破产，就像里根总统对前苏联所做的那样。

Dai Yuexiang
China today is pretty similar to the US in the 1890–1900S, and the US didn't have the strongest navy until post-WWII. So I’d say 50 years maybe, or even longer

Dai Yuexiang
当今的中国与1890-1900年代的美国非常相似，而美国直到二战后才拥有最强大的海军。所以我估计50年，或者更久。

Edgardo Surca , former Military and Political Analyst at Large (2000-2019)
20 years if US will seat down and sleep.

Edgardo Surca 前任军事和政治分析师(2000-2019年)
20年，如果美国坐下来睡觉的话。

Julian Yf , knows Mandarin Chinese
The purpose of the CCP government is to ensure all the citizens are fed, clothed, sheltered, educated. Beyond that, not bullied by the others.
Why would they arm themselves to match the US of A?

Julian Yf，懂中国普通话
中国的宗旨是确保所有公民都能吃饱穿暖，受到保护和教育。除此之外，还有不要被别人欺负。
他们为什么要把自己武装起来，以便与美国对抗呢？