The only ironic thing about this is the way it is reported...

We all know that numbers and statistics can be manipulated to support just about any viewpoint. A per capita comparison is pretty irrelevant when you compare the two economies, the number of existing forces that must be supported, and the worldwide presence of the US (compared to the regional presence of China).

As such - the issue with China's buildup is less a global matter (for now) but more a local one.

The expansion of conventional weapons capabilities is pretty cheap compared to building high value units like aircraft carriers, hardened missile sites, airbases etc. (case in point - North vs South Korea)

During the cold war, the former Soviet Union used this philosophy to a great extent, in maintaining parity with the west (use quantity to overwhelm quality -- and "quality" tends to cost more).

It's China's growing conventional capability (quantity) that poses the most immediate concern - especially to Taiwan.

Well Browntrout said everything I was going to. "Per Capita" has absolutely no bearing in comparing the two.

Per Capita means per person. China has many more people, so of course the figure will be low. That doesn't mean they don't have a huge military.

If Fiji bought a box of WWII surplus pistols, their "per capita" military spending would far exceed the US, does that mean they would be a threat?

Same if China went out and purchased a couple of Deathstars powered by ZPMs, just because their large population makes their per capita spending minute, doesn't mean no one should be wary.