Admiral Says China Outnumbers U.S. in Attack Submarines

The Chinese Navy operates a greater number of attack submarines than the U.S. military and is expanding their mission set.

The Chinese navy now operates a greater number of attack submarines than the U.S. Navy and is rapidly expanding the scope of their undersea missions and patrols, U.S. Navy leaders told Congress Wednesday.

“Their submarine force has grown over a tremendous rate. They now have more diesel and nuclear attack submarines than we have so they’ve passed us in total quantity — but in quality they are still not there,” said Vice Adm. Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of Naval operations, integration of capabilities and resources.

Speaking before the House Seapower and Projections Forces subcommittee on the Navy budget, Mulloy also said the Chinese have expanded their undersea missions and patrols as well.

“They are producing some fairly amazing submarines. They’ve now had three deployments in the Indian Ocean.  They are expanding where their submarines go,” Mulloy told the subcommittee.  “We know they are out experimenting and working and operating and certainly want to be in the world of advanced submarines.”

Mulloy also cited Chinese production and testing of submarine launched weapons and said that one SSBN – or ballistic missile submarine capable of launching nuclear weapons – went on a 95-day patrol.

This development inspired many news reports and public commentary about the prospect that nuclear-armed Chinese ballistic missile submarines would have the ability to strike parts of Alaska and Hawaii from various undersea locations in the Pacific Ocean.

The issue of Chinese naval and submarine development was addressed in detail in the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s annual report to Congress released last year.

The commission said Chinese modernization plans call for a sharp increase in attack submarines and nuclear-armed submarines or SSBNs. Chinese SSBNs are now able to patrol with nuclear-armed JL-2 missiles able to strike targets more than 4,500 nautical miles.

In addition, the Chinese are currently working on a new, modernized SSBN platform as well as a long-range missile, the JL-3, the commission said.

The commission also specifically addresses areas of Chinese-Russian military developmental cooperation, saying the two countries are working on a joint deal to build new attack submarines.

“China is pursuing joint-design and production of four to six Russian advanced diesel-electric attack submarines containing Russia’s latest submarine sonar, propulsion, and quieting technology. The deal would improve the PLA Navy’s capabilities and assist China’s development of quiet submarines, thus complicating future U.S. efforts to track and counter PLA submarines,” the commission wrote.

China is also reportedly pursuing a new class of nuclear submarines, called the Type 095 SSGN, which could bring the country its first-ever submarine-launched, land-attack cruise missile.

While the commission said the exact amount of Chinese military spending is difficult to identify, China’s projected defense spending for 2014 is cited at $131 billion, approximately 12.2 percent greater than 2013. This figure is about the sixth of what the U.S. spends annually.

The Chinese defense budget has increased by double digits since 1989, the commission states resulting in annual defense spending doubling since 2008, according to the report.

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Virginia, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee, cited the increase in submarine and surface navy patrols tripling since 2007 as an area of concern.

“What they are doing with patrols is just the tip of the iceberg. It is not just the number of the ships, but within five to eight years they will have about 82 submarines in the Asia Pacific area and we will have about 32 to 34,” he said last summer.

Although Mulloy made the point to lawmakers that the U.S. currently enjoys a technological advantage over China when it comes to submarines and undersea technologies, there is nevertheless much concern about this issue for the future.

Along these lines, a recent study says emerging submarine detection technologies, computer processing power and platforms such as underwater drones could quickly erode the U.S. military’s global undersea dominance and ability to operate in high-threat areas such as locations near enemy coastlines.

The U.S. military relies upon submarines and undersea technological superiority for critical underwater intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance missions, which place assets near the surface fleet or coastline of a potential adversary.

In coming years, the technological margin of difference separating the U.S from potential rivals is expected to get much smaller, requiring the U.S. the re-think the role of manned submarines and prioritize innovation in the realm of undersea warfare, according to a January report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments titled “The Emerging Era in Undersea Warfare.”

“America’s superiority in undersea warfare results from decades of research and development, operations, and training. It is, however, far from assured. U.S. submarines are the world’s quietest, but new detection techniques are emerging that don’t rely on the noise a submarine makes, and may make traditional manned submarine operations far more risky in the future. America’s competitors are likely pursuing these technologies even while expanding their own undersea forces,” the report states.

Navy officials told Military​.com the service was doing all that it could to retain its undersea technological advantage.

The U.S. has enjoyed an undersea technological advantage because it has quieter submarines that are more difficult to detect — combined with advanced sonar technology designed to find enemy submarines, the report’s author recently told Military​.com

— Kris Osborn can be reached at

About the Author

Kris Osborn
Kris Osborn is the managing editor of Scout Warrior.
  • Nicky

    Chinese may have the numbers but they don't have the technological smarts or tactics.

    • Docsenko

      They have enough to give us a run for our money. Never underestimate the Chinese.

    • Muttling

      Your comment reminds me of something a Korean War officer era once told me. "We were playing poker, they were playing chess. We got our a$$es kicked.") You have to think ahead when combatting China. Currently, our sub fleet will outclasses them with ease……10 years from now this may not be true. Our carriers are at the same risk.

    • PolicyWonk

      Not entirely true.

      The USA (from 2002-2008) radically increased the transfers of dual-use technologies to China, including the hard-won manufacturing techniques (not to mention 8+ million jobs) and manufacturing base. To anyone who studies Asian history, the fact that any contract signed stipulated those technologies could only be used for civilian purposes knows that contract is hardly worth the recycling value of the paper it was printed on.

      Pat Buchanan complained about the technology transfer in many an editorial, imploring the GOP/Administration of G W Bush to stop the wholesale transfers, saying that it'll hurt US jobs, national security, the tax base, allow China to expedite the build up of its military, and likely start them on the path to diplomatic belligerence.

      As we have since found out – all 16 UN Intelligence Agencies agreed in several versions of the National Intelligence Estimates, which declared this massive transfer of technologies, the strategic manufacturing base, and jobs a massive, multi-faceted, national security disaster. And not only for the USA – but for our allies and all the other nations in the region as well.

      And the evidence is now clear for all to see.

      • UsnRet74

        It will not be long when China will own this Country of ours because our Politicians in Washington are selling us out. A lot of the Meat and groceries production plants in this Country are already owned by the Chinese. They own many Golf courses. You younger people better start smarting up and do something about it. I'm 77 so I will not see the final outcome. You need new people in Washington that will work for the people that elected them and not their political parties.

      • EarnestTBass

        Dear fmr Navy ret74. China already owns us They are the ones who are financing us, We keep borrowing from them by the billions every second And We'll keep on with no end in sight just keep kicking the same old can down the same old road.

    • max

      Actual Chinese defense expenditures for FY16: 400-450 billion, NOT 130-140 billion.

      Estimated (Russian sources) number of Chinese nukes: 2,500 — 3,000, NOT 300-400.

    • Capt Nolan Perreira

      The Germans in both World Ward had much better Quality than the Allies. How did that end up? Quantity has it's own Quality. We have been seduced by the idea of having the Best. What we will really need is the Most. Tough,easily built, easily learned, and in quantity. Think Kalashnikov instead of M16.

      • blight_

        At some point you can't grow soldiers on trees and some investment in the warfighter is necessary. The IED problem resulted in heavier infantry transports only after rose-tinted glasses became blood-tinted.

        The Army cannot conceivably outnumber its adversaries on the ground ("The Most"). Due to global projection, the skewed combat/support ratio and legally mandated manpower caps, we can't realistically expect "the Most".

  • guest


    I hear they outnumber us in infantry, too! Oh noes! Everybody panic!

    • Leon Suchorski

      When we went into Vietnam in force for our first battle, we were outnumbered by Charlie, by 4 to 1. And we only won by the hair on our chinny-chin-chins. Never underestimate your enemy.

      • crackedlenses

        Noting that the Vietcong/NVA died like flies and the North Vietnamese were hiding their true casualty numbers from an increasingly reluctant public, "born in the North to die in the South" was how they put it…..

  • JimmyD

    And what percent of their boats are basically defensive (short-range)? Let me guess, most of them. So the admiral is beating the drums to get more money or to insure a sweet gig with a contractor post-retirement?

    • EdC

      Well, that kind of matters if you're talking about them having offensive capabilities…if they're defending the homeland…it matters to us.

      • JimmyD

        Ed – are you planning to invade China anytime soon?

  • Lance

    They have number but we have quality. A LA or VA class attack sub has much better technology and better trained crew than PRC subs have. I bet one US sub can defeat several PRC subs in a open battle.

    • Dfens

      Hell yeah, that worked so damn well for the Germans in WW2. They had better tanks and we had more. They had better airplanes and we had more. Why should we now imitate the winning strategy when we can be just like the losers?

      • crackedlenses

        "Why should we now imitate the winning strategy when we can be just like the losers?"

        Outnumbering and outproducing the most populous nation on earth. That sounds like a wonderful idea, even if you bank on building large numbers of unmanned units.


      • Dfens

        Damn, it makes me wonder if people's brains are full of "write only" memory:

      • wpnexp

        One nuke eliminates the entire boneyard. Guess you didn't read the part about more modern SSBNs.

      • blight_

        We can outproduce if and only if we had the industrial base to do so.

        Shipbuilding? We have the shipyards to build supercarriers, and are the only nation on the planet that can. However, when it comes to destroyers, cruisers, support vessels…compare those numbers to the numerous shipyards the People's Republic has. Count up civilian yards on both sides, as those are the yards that would be turned over to military production in wartime. The Chinese still have more yards. We have yards for the remaining American merchant marine flagged under the Jones Act. However, the ease of turning civilian shipyards to military production depends on a highly trained workforce and the availability of materials.

        Aircraft. I don't know if the Chinese have a lot of orders for civilian aircraft, which limits the bootstrap ability of their aviation industry. We have a decent civilian aviation industry (Boeing), plus military (Boeing+Lockheed). While this gives us some infrastructure to bootstrap off of, it remains to be seen how flexible this production infrastructure is.

        Then there's tanks, vehicles, etc. Tanks might be interesting, but tanks are a small fraction of a fighting force. The ability to make ammunition,shells, rockets, missiles and bombs will determine who wins, especially in mechanized warfare that is heavy on the consumables. Our last experience with scaling up consumables was for OIF. Until scaleup of ammunition production kicked into high gear, there were shortages on the civilian market. I am curious if disparities between production and consumption contributed to supply issues in 2003, or if that was purely a problem of delivering supplies from a warehouse to a unit in the field (logistics).

        While we have Davis Monathan, reconditioning units already produced and stored outside will represent an additional challenge. It's likely the first step would be to start reconditioning aircraft for use, but many items may have fallen out of the supply chain already. This would probably result in a great deal of McGyver and cannibalism to bring old aircraft online, along with rapid custom fabrication to make old parts to make new parts adapt to be fitted to different aircraft.

    • Historian

      At the beginning of the War, one Rebel was supposed to be able to beat 10 Yankees. But the Yankees won. So while today one US sub can beat several PRC subs in a open battle, there is the requirement to do that for every sub and to do it quickly. Even the Yankees learned how to fight so in the end, while the Rebels were better, they still somehow lost.

      • Dfens

        Yeah, the South lost because they had no manufacturing capability. We'd never make that mistake again. Doh!

        Let's bring in a bunch of foreign nationals to work as slave labor and then drop all our tariffs because it worked so damn well for the South in the Civil War. Let's see, any other losing strategies we can try?

  • JJSchwartz

    "China’s projected defense spending for 2014 is cited at $131 billion, approximately 12.2 percent greater than 2013. This figure is about the sixth of what the U.S. spends annually."

    Even though their spending may be 1/6 of our defense spending they are not, to my knowledge, 'bothered' with sequestration which is debilitating in training of personnel and in design and construction of advanced technologies. The other thing is that Congress, for the sake of votes, often dictate to the military weapons and weapons systems that the military doesn't want which results in waste that congress accuses the military of indulging in. (Continuing to throw good money after bad in the case of the JSF is an example of the Pentagon's waste of budget resources.)

    • blight_

      They're also focused on one ocean, versus the seven seas, 24-time zones the US is diluting its efforts in.

  • moebius22

    Our broken acquisition system is going to be our downfall. The Chinese don't have to build hardware that's our equal. They just have to build more of it.

    • Dfens

      It's nice to hear from someone who gets it. Plus, they have more while spending two to three orders of magnitude less money. Kind of like the Cold War but we get to be the Soviet Union this time. But what the hell, let's make sure we continue to give our defense contractors every chance to spend themselves rich at our expense and then we can all sit around and wonder where the money went.

      • Vitesse et Puissance

        There are a lot worse ways to spend the nation's money than to build more attack subs.

      • Dfens

        I absolutely agree with you. It's not the spending on the subs that bothers me, it's all the free money that goes as welfare for the rich that makes me angry. Also, it's the fact that our procurement incentives encourage companies to do a bad job in the design phase so they can get their programs cancelled as the production phase starts. That's the one that really pisses me off.

        Weapons we need. The world is is a much friendlier place if you have them. The billionaire welfare queens and con artists we can do without.

    • guest

      Correct! Most people are unaware that what defeated the Axis powers in the big "real" war of WW2 was "production" more than anything else.

  • torquewrench

    "China’s projected defense spending for 2014 is cited at $131 billion, approximately 12.2 percent greater than 2013. This figure is about the sixth of what the U.S. spends annually."

    The percentage of what the US "defense budget" devotes to personnel benefits and compensation has grown ridiculously large. We spend a ton of money, but not as much of it as one would think actually goes to the buying of weaponry.

    • Dfens

      Right, that's why you see all these damn soldiers driving Lexus' and Ferrari's. They make so damn much money.

      • Sw614

        Compared to China's soldiers, the quality of life is at a much higher standard.

      • Sw614

        Quality of life of US military members

      • Dfens

        Perhaps we should outsource those jobs then. After all, what could possibly go wrong with that idea? More seriously, though, what does it say about us as a nation when we make movie stars rich and pay those who put their lives on the line for each and everyone one of us so little that they can barely afford to feed their families? What does it say about us that these same people can't get decent medical care when they are wounded protecting our lives and the lives of those we claim to care about?

      • Leon Suchorski

        Did I hear that you are going down to the recruiter's office to sign that BLANK CHECK on your life like they have? If you are not, then do not degrade them for how they spend their money for how long they may be alive. When I was in the Marines back in Vietnam time, I bought a brand new car, before the salesmen even had any pictures of them. I did that, because I put everything on it, and let my parents drive it for the tour that I was doing. If I did not make it back, they had the car fully paid off, and all they had to do was regular service while I was gone. They drove to Florida and back, and had never been in a more relaxing car. When I got back , I took the car back, and my dad cussed me out that I had spoiled him by letting him drive it. So, until you have signed that BLANK CHECK, please don't squack.

      • blight_

        He's not snarking at the idea of buying a car before shipping out, but the idea that all of the military's problems are laid at the feet of "personnel benefits and compensation". I've always wondered if the military would be better served by prioritizing benefits and such for those that go into combat, versus diluting benefits to all those in uniform, including those in CONUS or European postings.

      • Dfens

        Ironically, a large part of the reason the cost of soldier's benefits is going sky high is because the government is hiring defense contractors to provide those very benefits. If you think Lockheed engineers do such a great job, why not hire Lockheed doctors and nurses?

      • ET1 Matthew Eliason

        Preach brother

  • superraptor

    we easily could have double the number of attack subs. For example if we were to build in licence the U216 in the US and would station these conventional subs around our strategic missile subbases to protect those bases we could free up our nuclear attack subs for other stuff. Where do you get the money?From the LCS program.
    Also if we built virginia attack subs with missile modules for conventional and nuclear missiles, maybe the boomer replacement program could be pushed back. It is all doable. however. However our leadership does not allow for alternative thinking. Same for the F-35 where it is forbidden to voice alternatives such as a restart of F-22 production.
    We are our own biggest enemies.

    • Dfens

      Yeah, restarting the F-22 line would fix all the nation's problems. You probably already have the VTOL and carrier landing versions of that hunk of junk ready to go, right?

      • Docsenko

        The F22 has proven itself. It is the best we have at this time. The F35 on the other hand is nothing more than a lawn dart and cost more than the F22 in the long run.

      • oblatt22

        Yea its proven itself to be a maintenance nightmare and an operational no show. The only time it was ever used in combat we had to get the Syrians to turn off their air defense first.

      • Dfens

        You're absolutely correct, and I'd add that it has never even presumed to be a VTOL airplane nor has it ever been used in carrier operations. It's well past time people stopped trying to hammer the square peg in the round hole. It doesn't work.

  • Brian B. Mulholland

    Give China time. Their technology will improve, their personnel skills will improve, and there is a vast difference between China and the US in terms of goals. We seek to project power to protect allies who have no intention of defending themselves, save for Korea and a slowly changing Japan. Their focus is close to home and the recovery of Taiwan. Their goals are a lot easier to achieve then ours, in terms of the investment needed to bring the goal within reach.

  • Leo Johnson

    If you look at the photos of these submarines you will see that they are the former Russian submarines .they have Engineering Problems that is why they were put into Reserve status by the Russian Navy andthen sold or gave them to China.

  • Leo Johnson

    In the next Presidential Election in 2016 Please don't vote for Hillary .If you vote for her you will see the rest of our nation be sold to China

    • Dfens

      I think you're right, although I'd also ad Jeb Bush's name to the list of those that will sell our nation to China. Rand Paul's name should be on there too. After all, his dad argued in front of congress for China to become our "most favored nation" trading partner.

  • MIKE

    I am concerned that we continue to think we will maintain that technological edge – tey have been stealing our technology secrets for sometime – look at their Stealth fighter damn sure looks like the F23. Also they are the type that will sit back and let us continue to believe that they are inferior and when put to the test ….we don't need to get surprised. If you can't make quiet subs just make more and all that noise will just create confusion and at 5 to 1 – I don't like those odds. We need to continue to develop the hypersonic systems thus allowing us to respond anywhere on the planet in record time – Need to cut back on large targets in the ocean (carriers) and deploy smaller and faster systems with weapons systems that go beyond the horizon —— and yes Can the F35 no legs more F22 are the ticket!

  • erich

    Yes indeedy. It really depends on how they are operated and the type of hardware that matters. Kind of like the Battle of Rorke's Drift during the Zulu Wars. and to be sure the Germans had more U-Boats than the U.S. but they lost nearly all of them along with 33,000 submariners.

    • blight_

      It's easy to assume technology will enable us to slaughter our way through the problem. Rourke's Drift was preceded by an ill-timed march into enemy territory, resulting in wholesale slaughter of the attacking force.

  • oblatt22

    The game is already over the Chinese are unstoppable now and will become the next world leader. We also know that Americas reaction will not be to lift our game but the wallow in dial and self pity.

    • John Scior

      China has certainly become a world leader in exports and manufacturing, however the US manufactures and exports the one thing the rest of the world seems incapable of producing,- a stable monetary currency.

      • kjNavyVet

        China and Russia are only participating in the monetary system until US Navy can no longer contain them. Judging by the article, this does not appear to be far off in the future.

  • autonomousresistance

    Remember the Cold War and how much more advanced and large the Soviet military threat was? Now we know it was a big lie, just like the WMD that were supposed to be in Iraq. The US military has been fear mongering for over 50 years in efforts to get bigger budgets and new shiny toys, meanwhile the US economy is stagnant, infrastructure is falling apart, towns and cities are going bankrupt, but the admiral wants more "attack submarines"…

    • kjNavyVet

      Defense is the fourth highest spending item after pensions, healthcare, and education. Welfare spending is only slightly less than defense spending. The only one the Federal government is authorized to spend on is national defense. The rest of those items were mean to be state/local government responsibilities.

      • Dfens

        If we would call a constitutional convention to repeal the 16th amendment, the federal government would have plenty of money to perform their constitutional duties, while not being so rich that they can meddle in all those things they have not been authorized to do.

      • Big-Dean

        BZ to Defens :-D

    • Steve W.

      Which would you rather be
      on, a surface target or a SSN ?
      Take it from a former destroyer sailor whose ASW, GQ station was on .the attack director. SSN, hands down.

  • Big-Dean

    A key point to remember about submarine warfare is a zero sum game, one side wins (lives) and the other side loses (dies). There is not such thing as getting damaged and retreating. Unlike Naval surface warfare, submarine do not take damage. A submarine, either ours or there's, that takes a torpedo is is totally destroyed

    A surface ship can take hits or damage to a certain degree, and still fight back or limp home depending. The larger the ship the more damage it can take.

    • sambo

      But it will be out for the war, I would be surprised if it got home. Most hits are devastating these days. So the US has a fleet of 100 ships trotting around China's boarders. 300 missiles would finish them all off. It would cost them nothing compared to the money for the ships, limping home or not they would be out of action for a year, and could easily be sunk while limping home.

  • STemplar

    Mine the Straits of Hormuz, no oil. World economy collapses, China freezes and starves to death… week on DWTS…….

    • oldguysailor

      They’ll starve after us since we owe them $12 trillion!!!

  • xXTomcatXx

    It's not "us vs them". At least not in this case. China is faced with not only the US Navy, but also the Japanese, South Korean, and ROC navies, all of which are mimicking China's actions with submarine investment. Japan needs to drop SD in JMSDF, and the three nations HAVE to find more common ground. Right now all three of them would end up in conflict against China, but not quickly enough to make it a 4 vs 1 scenario. China will pick them off one at a time thereby eating the elephant in bite sizes that it knows it can overwhelm. It should start with Japan and South Korea signing strong maritime mutual defense accords. Later, fold in the ROC, and lastly bring in the smaller SE Asian navies.

  • 8950331

    As history keeps pointing out…it is not the size & numbers of assets available; but the technical quality, along with the inherent skills & leadership that is paramount. Nothing else will matter.

    • oldguysailor

      The history of World War II didn’t point that out… the German military was far better equipped!

      • James

        Actually, size and numbers DO matter. As "oldsailorguy" points out, we won WWII in part by burying our foes in our junk. The Sherman, one on one, could not compete with German Tanks — a principal example. The Chinese in Korea "almost" (some would say, DID) kick our butts with human wave tactics. This has been the case with several asian (former) enemies.

        Even during the recent wars, while U.S. and allied quality counted for a lot, we still needed to have the numbers to make an impact (i.e., the"surges"), and an excessive decrease in such numbers have made the results less desirable.

        The whole thing is more complex than can be represented here; but, quantity and quality are a balancing act that that is very situational. You need both — and the Chinese progress, in the current and probable future contexts is or should be of great concern.

  • oldguysailor

    Oh yeah, well I bet we have five times as many Admirals as they have!

    • guest

      Their admirals have bigger hats.
      Now if you want REALLY big hats, go across the Yalu.

  • mike mclaughlin

    As long as American businesses keep moving manufacturing operations to COMMUNIST China and Americans keep buying from COMMUNIST China we will become their third world lackeys.

    • D

      I agree with Mike. We keep feeding them with every purchase we make from China. We need to pull our heads out of our asses and invest within our country. Cause maybe half or 3/4 of the items on our military fleet is probably from China.

      • sambo

        What do you mean 3/4 of U.S military items are from China?

  • Gdadl

    While we keep letting the Chinese steal out technology (which they do on a simply massive scale) with no penalty, it will continue to be the main reason why they are making such advances all while spending less than us. Bottom line is we have piss weak leadership and until we demand better it will just keep happening

    • gdalysr

      It is well know that the Chinese tap into our ship building information and intelligence. This is done on a daily basis. This is nothing new . All Presidents, Bush !, Clinton, Bush 2 , and Obama and befor, have allowed this to become reality. We survived the Russian Navy's threat some years back. This was done even with the traditor John Walker delivering our most guarded secrets to them for a small amount of money . Today, some of our contractors are in bed with China and other countries that are real threats to this country security. This is an American problem to be addressed in the ballot box…


  • Ron Coomes

    As a former Julie/ECM operator aboard p3a Lockheed Orion I am concerned about your info re: China being so far ahead in sub development as far as I
    Know we have mothballed many of our squadrons. Such is a scarey thought with our current administration. I am sure they have no idea what is going on. Great article by the way.

  • Salty

    Don't forget WE still have SOSUS and we still have #$%%^&*()!@#. If i tell you that I got to kill you. And we still have the best Sailors crewing the best Boats, like Alfred E. Newman said "What Me Worry"?!

  • Bill

    Blame Reagan, the idiot, made us a Service Economy. And the Republican before him (nixon – small "n" on
    purpose) sent Kissinger to China to get them started on selling everything to the U.S. Simple fact, China has a different lifestyle than us and can outspend us on militry hardware. Also, our "Allies" Europe and Austrailia, Japan and Korea use us for fools. We spend all our money protecting them and they spend all there money on making better products to sell to us (automobiles, electronics, etc. Get Real foks we have to think a new strategy. I, personally, would trust a U.S. Admiral any farther than I could throw them.

  • John

    The budget discussion is misleading. The amount of dollars spent is a density problem spread across a given volume. The US spends XXX across the globe fighting on many fronts. The Chinese spend YYY with a much smaller focus. Too much money spent on too many fronts = same problem facing the USSR just prior to their collapse. Additionally, spend a few minutes determining what capabilities they actually have (i.e., not… look at the boogeyman with this many sticks) and the actual threat presented. There are many ways to deal with the boogeyman's 'threats' beyond buying more 'sticks'.



    • just_justMe

      You think only you have nukes?