China built 10 missile cruisers in 48 months, packing 1,120 missiles

While within the territory of China, the United States is sadly unable to fully protect the rights of oppressed humans, I am very happy that my tax dollars go to support innocent passage through the South China Sea, making a mockery of their so-called territorial claims that are consistently refuted by the UN. Here's my proof : "On 10 May[2024] , USS Halsey (DDG 97) asserted navigational rights and freedoms in the South China Sea near the Paracel Islands, consistent with international Law." https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/37714...

Actually, it is clear. What Ukraine is doing would not work in the open ocean, they're simply too small.

However, the basic concept could be applied. Russia and China have been building big weapons intended to dash through the defenses fast enough that not all of them will be picked off. Our doctrine has been different, stuff meant to sneak though defenses. But it's still missile vs interceptor.

However, the war in Ukraine (and to a lesser degree the one in Israel) has shown that for the same cost in weaponry you can deliver more by overwhelming your target with simple things. I'll stick to western systems because they're easier to get numbers for. You want to attack a US naval force? Get a whole bunch of Boghammers or the like. Seems to be about $200k/unit. Since they're going to be stripped down units you can probably put simple robotic controls on for the cost of the systems you're not including. Total sitting ducks vs what they're going against--but the cheapest missile in the magazines capable of being fired at a Boghammer costs 5x as much. Sure the fleet will know they're coming but what can they do? We have already seen that it doesn't take very many units to overwhelm Russian gun defenses, we probably fare not better.

Use it for what exactly? For decades the militaries of the world have subscribed to the theory of detterence - build up a force sufficiently large that no one in their right mind will try to attack you, and thus you don't need to fight. Under such a doctrine, the entire point of the massive spending is to not use it.

As we see in Ukraine, the decision to try and flex military strength can be quite disastrous when you demonstrate your immense military is actually a paper tiger - it generates complaints domestically, and erodes credibility abroad, to say nothing of the various other negative consequences of fighting a prolonged conflict.

China is a land power, always has been, always should be. It has no experience conducting naval operations, exceedingly few foreign bases for supporting long range naval power projection, and it is totally reliant on the maritime status quo. China likely wants to deter anyone from getting ideas about interdicting its shipping, and is probably happy to find a use for its excess steel production, but it would be crazy to pick a fight with the world's dominant naval power, which is coincidentally one of the world's premiere nuclear powers, and geographically unassailable by conventional forces, and there really isn't any naval opponent that isn't allied with one or the other. It's almost certainly intended as a fleet in being, at most an insurance policy in case America becomes isolationist in the next few years and there is a power vacuum.

I don't understand why everybody keeps underestimating China. Their space programs started with second hand copies of Soyuz capsules, and now runs circles around the US Space program...

Yeah, Russia is at war, though it is limited. In WW2, for an example of total war, about 1.5 billion shells were used on the western front alone, which is nearly 700,000 per day for 6 years straight. By comparrison 40-60k shells per day is nothing. Russia is ramping up production, they report that their current rate is 2.5X what they were producing a year ago, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to if they were on a wartime economy.

The US, again being at peace, is even less motivated to ramp up its production. While the exact numbers aren't currently known, in 1994 the US had 20.4 million artillery rounds stockpiled. It has sent about 2 million of the oldest ones to Ukraine (equivalent to about 6 months of Russian production), and it is also selling large numbers to Israel. The army wants to boost artillery shell production because they always do, but the fact is the US does not currently need to match Russia's production rate, as it is not using shells at nearly the same rate. It's also worth noting that many other nations are likewise producing artillery shells to send to Ukraine. The limitation on western aide to Ukraine has been political will, not insufficient materiel.