The US Defence Budget is now greater than that of the next 25 countries put together!

[TheStinger]

France and Germany have large armies but they are conscripts so they are cheap

[DinoDoc]

France has an army?

[Arrian]

Good point, Dan.... is there a table that ranks the countries based on the % of GNP they are spending on the military?

That being said, I do think we have gone overboard. I fail to see how more M1A2s or F18s are going to stop terrorists.

-Arrian

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
France has an army?

its used to taunt english knights and throw cows at them

[Eli]

Yikes!

What's up with the Saudis? 27bil$?

[Kontiki]

I'll see what I can find for military spending as %age of GDP. Some interesting stuff in here http://www.cdi.org/products/almanac0102.pdf but almost exclusively about the US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As pointed out % of GDP is what matters. US is going to 4%, which granted is much higher than European countries (average about 1% of GDP on defense), but nothing compared to some ME countries that go closer to 10% of GDP.

[Kontiki]

Here's a particularly interesting piece of info from my above link- see how much your favorite administration spent on the military:

U.S. Military Spending 1946 – 2002
Billions of $2002

1946 556.9 1947 52.4 1948 103.9 1949 144.2
1950 141.2 1951 224.3 1952 402.1 1953 442.3
1954 420.9 1955 376.9 1956 356.2 1957 360.9
1958 352.9 1959 352.5 1960 344.3 1961 344.0
1962 363.4 1963 368.0 1964 364.4 1965 333.1
1966 356.2 1967 412.0 1968 449.3 1969 438.1
1970 406.3 1971 370.6 1972 343.8 1973 313.3
1974 299.7 1975 293.3 1976 283.8 1977 286.2
1978 286.5 1979 295.6 1980 303.4 1981 317.4
1982 339.4 1983 366.7 1984 381.7 1985 405.4
1986 426.6 1987 427.9 1988 426.4 1989 427.7
1990 409.7 1991 358.1 1992 379.5 1993 358.6
1994 338.6 1995 321.6 1996 307.4 1997 305.3
1998 296.7 1999 298.4 2000 311.7 2001 307.8
2002 328.7

[DanS]

"see how much your favorite administration spent on the military"

I agree. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations were a bunch of defense whores.

[Kontiki]

Wow, sorry, that list is a little hard to read.....

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


As pointed out % of GDP is what matters. US is going to 4%, which granted is much higher than European countries (average about 1% of GDP on defense), but nothing compared to some ME countries that go closer to 10% of GDP.

Yes and no. True the US (and NATO countries, in general) have to spend more on pay than third world countries, but procurement and operations costs tend to be fairly similar (more or less). Again, from the link:

FISCAL YEAR 2002 — BUDGET AUTHORITY
(Dollars in Billions)
Military Personnel $82.3
Operations and Maintenance $125.7
Procurement $61.6
Research and Development $47.4
Military Construction $5.9
Family Housing $4.1
Other $1.9

In other words, the US is spending approximately 57% on ops, maintenance and procurement. That's over $187 billion.

[Kontiki]

Found some stuff on military as a percentage of GDP.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/site...b_table_1.html

Here's the previous top 25 in percentage of GDP - the %ages are from 2000, so there won't be a perfect match:

United States - 3.3
Russia* 5.8
China* 2.2
Japan 1.0
United Kingdom 2.7
Saudi Arabia 14.5
France 3.0
Germany 1.6
Brazil* 1.8
India 2.8
Italy 2.0
South Korea 3.4
Iran 3.0
Israel 9.7
Taiwan no data
Canada 1.3
Spain 1.5
Australia 2.2
Netherlands 1.9
Turkey 4.0
Singapore 5.7
Sweden 2.5
United Arab Emirates* 6.9
Poland 2.3
Greece 4.6

[Asher]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
in WW2, the US mainland was never in danger of being invaded, let alone by the Nazis.

Just because it never happened doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

Didn't Germany have some deal with Mexico or something? (I'm hardly a history major but for some reason I think I remember this)

I've also seen the coastal defenses on the coast of California. They took an invasion threat quite seriously at the time...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
Didn't Germany have some deal with Mexico or something? (I'm hardly a history major but for some reason I think I remember this)

That was WWI.

U boat attacks off the coast of the Continental US was the closest the Germans ever got to attacking the US mainland IIRC.

[MikeH]

UK dropped to 2.5% last year and is expected to drop again.

[Az]

Israel 9.7%

Saudi Arabia 14.5

[Eli]

Saudi Arabia - 14.5%?

[DinoDoc]

They have more enemies than just you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dino... they are Israelis, they think the whole world revolves around then .

[Lefty Scaevola]

"The US Defence Budget is now greater than that of the next 25 countries put together!"

What a bunch of weenies. We should punish those wothless slackers.

[Az]

DD:

[Dauphin]

In terms of assessing cost and the affordability to a country using GDP is fine, but in terms of assessing need it is a strange yardstick IMO.

Surely defence spending should not be proportional to the size of the economy, but to the level of perceived threat. Given the US is by far and away the largest country (economically) with no above the norm military threats, surely its cost should be the smallest as a %age?


I would expect there to a be a fairly fixed cost for defence, not a variable one dependent on the size of your economy.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
In terms of assessing cost and the affordability to a country using GDP is fine, but in terms of assessing need it is a strange yardstick IMO.

Surely defence spending should not be proportional to the size of the economy, but to the level of perceived threat. Given the US is by far and away the largest country (economically) with no above the norm military threats, surely its cost should be the smallest as a %age?


I would expect there to a be a fairly fixed cost for defence, not a variable one dependent on the size of your economy.

That's probably closer to a good assessment of military spending. I would also throw in there some relative valuation of those countries perceived as threats. It's not that the US economy can't afford the level of defense spending it has, it's just that you could cut in half and there still wouldn't be another country close to it in military power. Plus, while adding another 1% or so of GDP to military spending isn't going to bankrupt the country, it translates to tens of billions of dollars. Think about where that money could be better spent. Take your pick from whichever political or social view you hold - healthcare, education, airport/port/rail security, foreign aid, intelligence, INS, postal services, tax cuts, etc.

[chequita guevara]

It's called military Keynesianism. It's how we keep our economy afloat. The real purpose of the US military buget is to keep money circulating and create a demand for heavy industry and high tech. It's why we lead the world in technology and production.

It also keeps the rest of you in check.

[DanS]

SD and Kontiki: Nah, that's not the way that many Americans view it. Post WWI and WWII, we disarmed very quickly. We saved a lot of money, but our weakness encouraged potential adversaries to try to outspend us.

This is all about potential adversaries, not actual adversaries--a 20 to 30 year game. We have to have a number that makes the Chinese think that it's too expensive to get into an arms race with us.

This spending is, for lack of a better term, "good" for the world.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Post WWI and WWII, we disarmed very quickly. We saved a lot of money, but our weakness encouraged potential adversaries to try to outspend us.

And we went right back into a depression as soon as defense spending contracted. WWII pulled us out of the depression, and Korea pulled us out of the post-war depression. We've never left wartime spending since the Korean war. It would kill the economy.

[DanS]

"We've never left wartime spending since the Korean war."

I think you mean, the Soviets never left wartime spending. 3%-4% of GDP is nowhere near wartime spending.

The post WWII contraction was a recession. Saying it was a depression is an extreme exageration.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DanS
We have to have a number that makes the Chinese think that it's too expensive to get into an arms race with us.

This spending is, for lack of a better term, "good" for the world.

Is it the number that needs to look big, or the military capability. If it is the former, spending $50billion on NASA (as part of the defence budget) would be a good avenue to explore.

(When did 'NASA' get taken out of the military budget - it used to be part of the AirForce if I remember correctly)

It's called military Keynesianism. It's how we keep our economy afloat. The real purpose of the US military buget is to keep money circulating and create a demand for heavy industry and high tech. It's why we lead the world in technology and production.

No contradiction with NASA spending there either.

I don't like the Keynesianism argument, not because I don't believe its true, but because the government could spend the money on anything to fulfil that task. Military use is just something that is more easily justified to patriotic taxpayers.

[DanS]

"Is it the number that needs to look big, or the military capability."

Both. We think that China could surpass us economically in about 10-30 years. We would like them to reduce their spending as a percentage of GDP over that time. The best way to do that is to make the number big and make it impossible to surpass us without going to a war footing.

"If it is the former, spending $50billion on NASA (as part of the defence budget) would be a good avenue to explore."

We spend about $35-$40 billion in space as is. $15B NASA. $15-20B Intel. V. roughly $5B miscellaneous space air force (the misc. space air force number could be off, as I don't have a good idea of that number--it's black, of course, and Rummy is a space-head).

[connorkimbro]

The amount of the defense budget really doesn't matter for ****. What percent the defense budget is of the overall GDP is what OUGHT to be compared.

And does anyone know what kind of results you get from that calculation? I'll give ya a hint, the US is nowhere NEAR the top.

[Dauphin]

The above post is why people should read threads before they post.