原创翻译：龙腾网 翻译：回复奖励 转载请注明出处

Su Chao, Software Engineer, lives in Shanghai
Abstract: We sorta do, but primarily as reactions to a fast changing geopolitical environment. China’s military modernization is passive, lagging and generally of lesser importance among government’s overall expenditures.
During the Cold War, China’s defense spending was crippling the economy. When Deng Xiaoping kick-started the Reform in 1978, he launched a war against Vietnam after obtaining Washington’s approval. The war signified an informal alliance between China and the US and tested the USSR’s resolve. After the war, Deng drastically cut defense spending and manpower, and started a military cooperation honeymoon with the West lasted until 1989. Between 1978 and 1989, military modernization was on the back-burner, the PLA was let loose to feed itself and eventually mutated into a commercial and industrial aberration.
After the China-West relationship reached its trough in 1989 and the First Gulf War broke out in 1990, Beijing suddenly realized its vulnerability. The First Gulf War and the Fall of the USSR was a pivotal point when our political and military leaders discovered a generation gap between armies of China and the West, in addition to the disillusion of benevolence from the West. China decided to scrambling military modernization.
Between China’s decision to modernize the military and China’s decision on how to modernize the military, it took two decades. Between 1990 and 2010, we had experienced the Fall of the USSR, the First Gulf War, the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Diaoyu Islands Dispute, the South China Sea Dispute, the Balkan War and the NATO Bombing of China’s Embassy, the Midair Collision Off Hainan Island, the Second Gulf War and Afghan War, and most importantly, China’s rapid economic growth. For twenty years, China was busy debating and adjusting on the direction of modernization. While controlled technological experiments and small-step tactic trials were made all over the spectrum, the most important structural reform was made during that period.
It may be hard for the Western audience to grasp, but before the US-lead War on Terror waned in early 2010s, the loudest voice in Beijing was to continue pleasing the US and remain a freeloader piggybacking on the US’ military might. Thus, China largely supported or at least stayed quiet on the US-lead foreign adventures unless directly encroached upon China’s core interests (Taiwan, Diaoyu Islands and South China Sea). The doves in Beijing wanted to continue the cozy US-China relationship under Clinton and Bush into eternity.
China’s continuous high growth not only shocked the foreign observers, it also shocked China’s leadership. Even the most optimistic Chinese academic/official would be in disbelief if you told them in 1995 that China’s nominal GDP will surpass that of Japan in 2010 and early triple that of Japan in 2019. In 1995, China’s nominal GDP was less than one seventh of Japan’s. And in 1990, China’s economic size was equivalent to Australia’s despite a population 65 times larger. For 20 years since 1990, China was struggling to understand her place in the world and her corresponding military stance thereof. Luckily, China was able to stay low while the US was preoccupied elsewhere.
By early 2010s, China’s geopolitical fortunate ran out. For the first time in 30 years, China can no longer keep a low profile and develop, is becoming the US’ only nemesis. Finding nowhere to hide behind, China panicked for a short while, but eventually settled on her new stance: confident but modest. Departing from China’s previous isolationist diplomacy, the Xi administration initiated the One Belt and One Road global development strategy. On domestic industrial capabilities, Beijing launched the Made in China 2025 plan. At the same time, China continues to maintain distant from world conflicts and avoid confrontations by means of diplomatic and economic maneuvers.
China’s military plans are made to serve the nation’s grand initiatives: i) reduce dependency on imported components inline with the Made in China 2025; ii) protect investments and earnings from the One Belt and One Road.
China, the World’s Workshop, is essentially a gigantic assembly plant that imports raw materials from mostly developing nations and high value high tech components from developed nations, assembles them, and exports the finished products. Although China is now able to manufacture most of the medium value components, we are still dependent on imports for CPUs, engines, and other components made with high precision tools and/or advanced materials. Despite Chinese economy’s growing global integration, China was denied of high tech tools first by the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) and then the Wassenaar Arrangement since 1949. China’s military R&D complex invests heavily on indigenous capabilities on aforementioned fields.
A blue water navy and a rapid response army is needed to protect China’s investments, personnel and trade routes worldwide. In response, we are building a couple of aircraft carrier groups and updating organizations and tactics for missions abroad.

Su Chao, Software Engineer, lives in Shanghai（软件工程师，住在上海）
某种程度上我们是有在这么做，但主要目的是为了应对快速变化的地缘政治环境。中国的军事现代化是被动和拖拉的，在政府的总体开销中所占的比重并不是那么大。
冷战期间，中国的国防开销让经济不堪重负。当1978年开始改革时，在得到华盛顿的批准后，他对越南发起了战争。这次战争象征着美国和中国的非正式结盟，并且测试了苏联的决心。战后，中国大大削减国防开销和军队规模，并且和西方步入了军事合作的蜜月期，直到1989年。在1978年到1989年期间，军事现代化被搁置一时，解放军只能靠自己生存并最终参与了商业和工业的运作。

在中西关系于1989年步入困难以及1990年第一次海湾战争爆发后，北京突然意识到自己的脆弱。第一次海湾战争和苏联解体，使得中国意识到了中国军队和西方军队之间存在的差距，而且西方不再对中国仁慈。所以中国决定加速军事现代化。
在中国决定进行军事现代化和决定如何进行军事现代化之间，花了20年时间。1990 到2010年，我们经历了苏联解体，第一次海湾战争，第三次台海危机，钓鱼岛争议，南海争议，巴尔干战争和北约轰炸中国大使馆，海南岛上空的中美撞机，第二次海湾战争和阿富汗战争，以及最重要的中国经济的快速成长。这20年来，中国忙于辩论和调整现代化的方向。中国最重要的结构改革都发生在这个时期。

西方观众可能很难理解，但是在美国所领导的反恐战争于2010年代初式微之前，中国最大的声音就是继续姑息美国，继续占美国军力的便宜。因此，中国大体上是支持美国所领导的军事行动，或者至少是不作任何评价，除非它直接损害了中国的核心利益（比如台湾，钓鱼岛和南海）。北京的鸽派想让克林顿和布什以来的温馨中美关系一直持续下去。



David Kleemann, Combat Medic at U.S. Army (2005-present)（美国陆军战地医生，2005年至今）
You know, I think they believe that. But…..
In a standard Chinese Infantry company, the entire company has only 2 radios. One for talking to higher headquarters and one for the political officer. Meanwhile in western forces we not only have more radios at the company level, but also at the platoon levels. And we are not hindered by the ineffective political officer BS that plague soviet style military''s.
The Chinese don’t trust the average soldier with compasses nor do they teach map reading as much as us in the western world
They don’t issue protective clothing other than helmets. No eye protection, no body armor, no fire retardant uniforms, etc.
They’re trying, but not in the areas that matter. You can’t just build an aircraft carrier or a 5th generation fighter and think that rules the day. You need a technical and tactically proficient military down to you trigger pullers of the lowest ranks. That’s why western military’s traditionally have been so good, because we view military service as a profession. And we make sure our rookies know their stuff. I’d wager some of our dumbest privates are orders of magnitude smarter than the officers in China.
我认为中国人确实是这么认为的。但是。。。
在一个标准的中国步兵连里，整个连只有两台无线电设备。一个用于和更高级别的总部联系，另一个用于和政治专员联系。而在西方部队里，我们不仅在连的级别拥有更多的无线电设备，而且在排的级别也拥有更多的无线电设备。而且我们不用受到低效的政治专员制度的困扰，苏联式的军队就拥有这样的问题。
中国人不相信普通士兵可以用好罗盘，也不像西方国家那样向士兵教授如何读图。
除了分发安全帽外，他们并不给士兵分发其他的防护性服装。没有眼睛保护，没有身体盔甲，没有防火的制服等等。
他们在努力，但是都是一些无关紧要的领域。你以为造出一艘航母或者一架5代战机，就可以一统天下了？没那么简单。你需要的是一支技术和战术上都娴熟的军队，包括了最初级的士兵。所以西方军队一般而言都很优秀，因为他们把兵役当成一种职业来看待。所以我们会给新兵提供足够的培训。我敢打赌我们最差劲的二等兵都比中国的军官厉害。

Bill Chen
Dude, you need to visit China and see for yourself. The PLA ain’t no Flintstones today. Two radios? Political officer control?
Every soldier has cellphones today.

楼上的，你应该自己去中国看看。如今的解放军可没有你说的那么不堪啊。两台无线电设备？政治专员制度？
如今每个士兵都有手机了。

Lan Yenchiu
It is fairly true; even if they have the gadgets you mentioned (body armor etc.) they are very cheap, much inferior to the quality of those of the US army. And, in my opinion, by far the biggest problem is your last paragraph. In China a very big part of the everyday activity of a soldier is not practice and excercise and learn how to be a soldier — but rather ideological “training”, they spend much time with listening to “patriotic” (=Party) propaganda and listening to the daily newspaper read out by officers and discussing its content and singing “patriotic” (=communist) songs and similar rubbish. Wasting many hours on these every day.

你说的没错；即使中国士兵拥有了你所提到的这些设备（身体盔甲等等），那也是非常廉价的，比美军的质量要差很多。在我看来，他们面临的最大问题是你最后的那句话。在中国，士兵没有把很多时间花在训练和如何成为一名真正的士兵上，而是把时间花在了接受意识形态的“培训”上，他们花很多时间接受爱国（相当于党的）宣传教育，听军官读报纸，然后讨论报纸上的内容并唱诵“爱国”歌曲等等类似的事情。每天都浪费几小时在这些事情上。

David Kleemann
Really? Man, don’t know what to tell you. On the one hand it’s reassuring that a potential foe has an unprepared military. On the other hand, soldiers form all civilized nations are essentially in the same boat. We all fight for our country.
Political Officers are the biggest problems with those kind of military’s. I mean, look at Americans. We bleed Red White and Blue. We are as American as they come. Yet we also criticize our country and criticize our officers. Hell, we’re usually a few steps away from outright mutinous behavior. And that’s a good thing. Most people wouldn’t even suspect it. In fact, the popular opinion is we are brainwashed robots. hahaha, furthest from the truth.
The standing order pretty much everyone in ground combat has is “when in doubt, attack.” It seems like in China “When in doubt, wait for party leadership to decide.” That kind of doctrine gets good soldiers killed.

真的吗？一方面我们的潜在敌人在军事上这么差，我们感到很安心。另一方面，所有文明国家的士兵基本上是同一条船上的。我们为我们的国家而打仗。
而政治专员是中国等国家的军队存在的最大问题。比如你看看我们美国吧。我们流血，但是我们可以批评我们的国家，批评我们的上司。我们几乎就要挥拳打他们了。而这是好事。可是大众却认为我们是被洗脑的机器。哈哈，这和事实简直相差十万八千里。
地面战斗时一般的命令都是“如果存疑，那就攻击”。可是在中国这样的国家，“如果存疑，那就等待党领导的决定”。这样的制度会导致优秀士兵被敌人消灭的。

Patrick Khaw
Yup. And that’s why China has lost so many wars. Oooops. China has not engaged in many wars.
But the US has. And it is winning all the time so much so that they are tired of it.
I had the pleasure of knowing the late Eugene Owen, Silver Star, who fought in Korea. There the Chinese used flags and bugles. :)

是的。所以中国输掉了那么多次战争。而且中国没有参与很多的战争。但是美国参与过很多战争。美国一直都是赢，所以都厌倦了。我很荣幸认识了已故的银星奖章获得者尤金欧文，他参与了朝鲜战争。中国人当时使用的是旗帜和军号。

Peter Sze
Can you give details of the wars that China lost? If you can’t , then stop bullshitting about the PLA.

你能详细说明中国输掉了哪些战争吗？如果你不能的话，就不要胡说八道了。

Thomas Daly
The pla is trash, there more brainwashed than trained. And yea wow they built a carrier but not even a decent one. Its bascily a gutted soviet era carrier. Im sorry to break it to you but the day the pla army goea against the US army will be a bad day for china.

解放军就是垃圾，他们更多是被洗脑了，而不是接受训练。是啊，他们造了一艘航母，可是并不咋地。就是一艘苏联时期的航母。哪天解放军敢和美军交手的话，中国就惨了。

Riedwaan Jacobs
You never heard of the Korean War? Go checkout how that worked out for US soldiers when they went up against the PLA

你没听说过朝鲜战争吗？去查查看当时美军面对解放军时是怎样的下场。

Zachary Biehn
What, where despite having us surrounded our marines fought their way out of chosin dealing massive casualties to the Chinese forces.
Did you also forget how Chinese soldiers were surrendering en mass to the marines with not even shoes on?
Don’t get me wrong soldiers on both sides fought valiantly in the worst conditions and each and every one is likely a better man than i’ll Ever hope to be, but trust me we can handle whatever you throw at us.
尽管我们的海军陆战队被包围了，但是他们还是杀出了长津湖，给中国军队造成了巨大的伤亡。
难道你忘了中国军队是如何大规模光着脚丫子向海军陆战队投降的吗？
不要误会我，双边的士兵都在严酷的环境下勇敢的打了这场战，他们个个都是英雄，但是相信我，不论你们采取了什么措施，我们美国都可以应对。

Lester Brake
In the 1930′s Japan, a small country, a tiny country. Took over the East part of China. Totally dominated China.the United States and. The U.K. took over parts of the country that they wanted. Also the France.

1930年代，日本这个小小的国家就占领了中国东部。完全主宰了中国。美国和英国接管了他们想要获得的中国地区，还有法国。

R.K. Redsmith
Those weren’t “wars,” but typical capitalist expropriation. When Mao and the revolution started to fight back against it, they were unstoppable. Now, do you want to answer the man’s question? If not, I will. None. The Chinese do not participate in wars, so they can’t lose. Wars are for capitalist expansion, of which the Chinese have no desire. I hope you live to see Chinese ways (building great infrastructure quickly, pulling people out of poverty) overtake paternalist American ways. Maybe you’ll learn something.

这些都不算是“战争”，而是典型的资本主义占领。当毛开始反击时，他们变得不可阻挡。中国人不参与战争，所以中国不会输。战争是资本主义的扩张，对此中国没有兴趣。我希望你能活着看到中国模式（快速建设伟大的基建，让人民脱贫）超越家长作风的美国模式。或许你会学到一些东西。

Cac Cowden
“Wars are for capitalist expansion”
Which of course would surprise the shit out of Chiang Kai Shek. But whatever.
“China does not fight wars”
Which seems a bit odd given the Sino-Japanese War, the Chinese Civll War (featuring aforementioned Chiang Kai Shek), the Korean War (after Yalu River).

“战争是为了资本主义的扩张”
你这个观点会让蒋介石吓出屎来。
“中国不打仗”
发生了中日战争，中国内战，朝鲜战争（鸭绿江之后），你竟然还敢这么说。



Yixin Li
The standing order pretty much everyone in ground combat has is “when in doubt, attack.” <- And this is why just about everyone hates America.

“地面战斗时一般的命令都是“如果存疑，那就攻击””
难怪所有人都讨厌美国。

David Kleemann
Because it’s so effective? Yea I’d hate the people that defeated me too… Except I’m in America so I’m waiting.

就因为这种做法很高效？是的，我也会讨厌那些打败我的人。但是我在美国，等着你来打败我。

Yixin Li
The problem is that people elsewhere in the world tend to remember attitudes such as yours. America might be strong right now, but it won’t be strong forever. The jingoistic, meatheaded stupidity and lack of discretion so amply demonstrated by American military personnel is going to cause the American people to suffer in the long run, since everyone in the world is going to want revenge.

问题是全世界的人们都会记住你这样的态度。美国现在或许很强大，但是不可能永远强大下去。美国军队的这种沙文主义愚蠢行为将让美国人遭受长期的损失，因为全世界的人们都想要报复美国。

Alex W S Chan
War is not about killing the enemy, war is about achieving political goals if you just keep shooting the enemy without giving them a chance to surrender or accept defeat, then you can’t end any war you fight, its the reason why after 2001 the Taliban remain fighting against America.

战争不在于杀了多少敌人，而在于是否实现了政治目标，如果你只是不断的和敌人战斗，不给他们投降和承认失败的机会，那么你永远无法结束战争，这也正是2001年后塔利班还在抵抗美国的原因。

R.K. Redsmith
Yeah, we certainly beat the Chinese in the Korean War, didn’t we? Oh wait. We also kicked the asses of those Vietname…oh, nevermind. Well, at least we won in Afghanis…uh, well at least we got lots of opium!

是啊，我们在朝鲜战争中绝对是打败了中国人，不是吗？哦，等等。我们还痛击了那些越南人。。。哦，别提了。好吧，至少我们在阿富汗赢得了胜利。。。好吧，至少我们得到了很多鸦片。

Matt Brown
You''ve haven''t studied any military history if you think we got our asses kicked. It was the will of politicians to end those wars, not strategic defeat.

如果你认为我们被打败了，这只能说明你并不了解军事史。是政客要结束这些战争，这不是我们的战略失败。

Dalton Rath
Funny that those 3 examples you choose are examples of American military genius. The American military performed wonderfully against the Chinese, Vietnamese, and Taliban. Politics aside, of course.

搞笑啊，你所列举的这三次战争都是美国军事胜利的例子。除开政治不谈，美军在面对中国，越南和塔利班时都取得了巨大的胜利。

David Kleemann
Those kind of people never understand the difference between the military and the political leaders calling the shots.

这些人永远都不明白军队指挥与政客指挥之间的差别。

Wasu Koysiripong
Your argument has several flaws. Here are the truths.
China doesn''t have conscxtion. Their soldiers joined the army voluntarily.
The Chinese soldiers that I have come across are all very patriotic. I believe most of them are. Otherwise, how did they risk thier lives parachuting in Sichuan in heavy rain to save earthquake victims?
A large proportion of US soldiers are mercenaries hired by private sub-contractors like Blackwater.

你的论点存在着几个错误。中国不是强制服兵役制，他们的士兵是志愿加入军队的。我遇到的中国军人都非常爱国。我相信他们大部分都是爱国的。否则的话他们怎么可能冒着生命危险在大雨之中跳伞到四川拯救地震受灾者呢？很大一部分的美国士兵其实是雇佣军，被私人承包商雇佣，比如黑水公司。

David Kleemann
So much wrong Wasu… Keep reading the state sponsored media, I have a feeling it’s very comforting and keeps you in line.

楼上的，你大错特错。继续看你的国有媒体新闻吧，我觉得你很适合看那些媒体。

Wasu Koysiripong
State sponsored media? What are you talking about? You don''t need to read any state sponsored media to know about Blackwater.

国有媒体？你在说啥呢？要想了解黑水公司，根本就不用看国有媒体的报道。

David Kleemann
“A large proportion of US soldiers are mercenaries hired by private sub-contractors like Blackwater.”
First, Blackwater hasn’t existed in over a decade I believe. Second, a large portion of US Soldiers are contracted mercenaries? Really? Reeaaalllyyyy? Think about that one long and hard, you should only really need 1–3 seconds to know that statement is absolutely absurd.

首先，黑水公司十多年前就不存在了吧。第二，很大一部分的美国士兵是雇佣兵？真的吗？真是太荒谬了。

Bertrand Fang
But the “ideological training” seemed to work wonders during the Chinese civil war. Does somebody care to comment?

但是解放军的这种“意识形态训练”在中国内战期间貌似产生了奇效。

Lucas Wright
Yeah against the ROC which was terribly led, had lots of disunity, was badly mauled by taking the brunt of the conventional engagements against the Japanese Army and was suffering from a complete lack of supplies. A perfect example of how ideological training failed was Japan vs USA in ww2. While the Chinese did well in Korea against the USA, the USA wasn’t fully mobilized to combat it… or else over 1 million American’s would have joined instead of the 300,000.

是啊，尤其是面对国民党军队时，国民党的军队太差劲了，很不团结，而且与日军正面交锋损失惨重，同时后勤补给严重不足。而意识形态训练失败的完美例子就是二战期间的日本对美国。虽然中国人在朝鲜战争中表现很好，但是美国并没有全力投入这场战争，否则的话美国就出动100万军人了，而不是30万。

Haosen Cai
I’ll chip in on this.
China’s mentality of how to develop its military changed drastically after they saw what happened to Saddam’s forces.
In all honesty, China’s only real threat at the moment is the USA - The chances of China of entering thermal conflict with Russia or Europe is much much lower than that with the USA.
If you were to look at what happened to Saddam’s forces, individual soldier performances have little impact in the grand scheme of things. Sure it’s nice to have a well equip infantry but how much does it help when the US can just fly over a bunch of stealth bomber so high in altitude that none of your AR missiles can reach it? The same can be said about jet fighters - without air superiority the infantry is basically just target practice. The same with naval - without the capability to take out US carriers, the US can simply just drive its carriers along China’s coast and bombard whatever it felt like that day.
If you look at China’s focus post the invasion of Iraq, the focus has always been about catching up on top notch gear so that it’ll at least have a chance to inflict damage on US’s naval & air asset.
Infantries? So what if the US infantry is better trained & equip? First of all the probability of US doing a full scale land invasion on China is very low, and even if that did happen so what? for every US infantry personnel there’s twenty more Chines infantry. The Chinese could line themselves up to get shot and the US will run out of ammunition before the Chinese ran out of babies.
So I would say that China is spending money exactly where it matters.

在看到萨达姆军队所遭受的失败后，中国的军事发展计划发生了巨大的变化。
说真的，中国目前唯一的真正威胁就是美国，中国与俄罗斯或者欧洲发生热战的可能性比和美国发生战争的可能性来的低。如果你去看看萨达姆军队所遭遇的失败，你会发现个体士兵的表现几乎不对整体局势产生影响。是的，拥有装备良好的士兵是很不错，但是如果美国派出一群高空隐形轰炸机，连你的导弹都打不到的高度，那么步兵装备良好又有什么用？这个道理同样适用于战机，如果没有空中优势，步兵基本上就成为了肉盾。海军也是如此，如果没有能力消灭美国航母，美国就可以将航母开到中国沿海，随时轰炸中国的任何目标。

如果你看伊拉克战争之后的中国军事发展重点，你会发现中国就是要在尖端装备上赶上美国，从而至少可以对美国的空中和海上资产构成伤害。
步兵？美国步兵在装备和训练上更好又怎样？首先，美国几乎不可能对中国发起全面的地面侵略。即使美国真的这么做了，那又如何？只要出现一名美国步兵，中国就有20名步兵来对付他。
所以我认为中国把钱花在了重要的事情上。



Vance Baker, Retired US Army, Military Intellgence, Always Out Front（退休美国陆军，军事情报人员）
Here is the problem for China and developing its military. Geography. I in an ideal situation like the US has, no potential enemies on its borders, the Chinese would cut its force by about 1 million men and use that money to fully modernize its remaining forces. getting rid of all the older planes and ships etc.
China however is not in ideal situation. It has India on a border, Vietnam on a border and both those nations have been getting into bed with the US and Japan. China also has North Korea and Myanmar on its borders and both those nations present protentional massive humanitarian crisis that could spill over into China. Afghanistan is on also its borders. All those areas have to be secured and that is not mention Russia to the North who is always a potential rival. Imagine having to secure all the from ground and air incursions and then also have the Japan, Taiwan and the US off you coasts.
Now as you can see China needs those numbers. So for China it spends money to modernize the forces in regions that might have to go up against the US and allies off the coast and the other regions can be maintained with older equipment.
This works for China in its current position.
In my opinion China’s military faces 3 major problems.
1. Lack of innovation and creativity, Chinas weapons and doctrines are copies of others, China is a nation of conformity and that is both its greatest strength and weakness.
2. Corruption. they have tried to crack down on this but, its China bending the rules for a profit is just how things are done.
3. Strict top down command and control, again this is result of society and it a weakness shared by many militaries where individual thinking and initiative are looked down upon. In the US and other Western militaries everyone knows the mission and that is priority, you may have orders to do one thing but, if the situation warrants it you can ignore or move beyond those orders in order to succeed in the mission. So even the most junior ranks can take the initiative instead of waiting for orders or permission. Speed is a key to victory in war and waiting for a higher command to get the right information, process it and the gives orders can be costly.

中国的军事发展面临着一个问题：地理。如果中国拥有美国那样理想的地理条件，边境没有潜在敌人，那么中国军队就可以裁员100万，把省下来的钱用于剩余军队的完全现代化，换掉所有老旧的飞机和舰艇等等。
可是中国并不具备这种理想的地理条件。中国与印度以及越南接壤，这两个国家与美日为伍。中国还与朝鲜以及缅甸接壤，这两个国家可能发生大规模的人道主义危机，从而波及到中国。阿富汗也和中国接壤。中国必须保证这些边境的安全，而且北边还有俄罗斯，一直以来都是中国的潜在对手。想象一下中国得从地面和空中保护自己免遭这些国家的伤害，而海面上还有日本，台湾和美国。
所以中国的军队规模才那么大。所以中国要对某些地区的军队进行现代化以应对美国及其盟友，而其他不那么重要的地区可以部署一些老旧的装备。
这种做法适用于目前的中国。

我认为中国军队面临三大问题：
1、缺乏创新和创意，中国的武器和学说都是抄袭别人的，中国是一个一致性的国家，这是中国最大的优点，也是中国最大的缺点。
2、腐败。中国在努力打击腐败，但是中国人为了获得利益向来是会违反规则的。
3、严格的自上而下的控制和指挥，因为中国就是这样的一个国家，很多军队都存在这个问题，个体的想法和主动权被忽视。在美国和其他西方国家的军队里，大家都知道任务是什么，这是优先事项，你可能收到了某个命令，但是如果情况有变，你是可以忽视这个命令的，然后采取其他行动以保证任务的完成。所以即使是新兵也可以采取主动，而不用等待上级的命令或许可。在战时，速度是胜利的关键，等待上级下命令会让你付出巨大的代价。

Gabriel Chan, Overseas Chinese (華僑)
No, China is only trying as hard as they need to for effective national defence, i.e. hold the line if the USA decides to attack China one day, directly or by proxy. No other country threatens China, which is ironic because Chinese people look up to the US in general. The rest of their resources go into socioeconomic development, such as food production, environmental protection and restoration, telecommunications and transportation infrastructure, and so forth.

并没有，中国只是在尽可能的满足自己的国防需求，即如果有一天美国决定攻击中国的话，中国要有能力守住防线，不论是直接冲突还是打代理人战争。除了美国，没有其他国家可以威胁到中国，这有点讽刺，因为中国人大体上是向美国看齐的。中国把剩余的资源用在了社会经济发展上，比如食物生产，环境保护和修复，通信和交通基建等等。

Jamie Cawley, LIved in China 2012-2018, now Hong Kong（2012-18年生活在中国，现在生活在香港）
China has spent the same proportion of its GDP, 1.9%, on the military for many years. The US spends 3.4% of its GDP. Overall Chinese military expenditure is less than one quarter of US spending

这么多年来中国的军费开销一直都只有GDP的1.9%。美国的军费开销占GDP的3.4%。总体上，中国的军费开销不到美国的四分之一。