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

[Alinestra Covelia]

Fortunately, America's economy can more or less afford this expenditure. When something like USSR's overspending happens, the citizenry really loses out because the leaders' priorities don't rest with their welfare.

Still, as an American tax payer, I applaud the army's social initiatives. Recently I heard about a US Army funded education system which takes kids who are on drugs, or have violent histories, or have suspected learning disabilities, and pays for them to attend intensive catch-up classes.

Sure pays off greater dividends than bombs and weapons. Once you fire a missile, you're not getting that money back...

Edit: China's a potential competitor? I can't see that happening, somehow. Right now most of their defence force is just that - defensive. Most of what limited offensive capabilities they have are targeting Taiwan. Besides, China's economy is the driving force behind their global power. What expenditure goes on their military is more an exercise in modernization than expansion.

They do kickass potstickers though.

[Mr. President]

It kind of gives people the wrong impression when you hold their soldiers hostage (even ones who were spying on you). And when you try and launch satellites to compete with theirs. And when you put advanced systems that track their satellites on small Pacific islands. And menace their allies with missiles and jet fighters.

[Kepler]

Um, according to that list Italy spends more on defense than Israel. Iraq and North Korea aren't even on the list, so we're asked to believe they spend less than... Sweden?

[Sikander]

These numbers are very difficult to compare due to the vast differences in the way various states military's are organized. A state that uses conscription (like North Korea for instance) pays a large off budget opportunity cost, though whatever out of pocket expenditures it has are minimal.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
maybe we should rename the defense department, the peace department to help releive their confusion

Personally, I'd rather it go back to being called the War Department.

[axi]

These numbers are very difficult to compare due to the vast differences in the way various states military's are organized. A state that uses conscription (like North Korea for instance) pays a large off budget opportunity cost, though whatever out of pocket expenditures it has are minimal.

The opportunity cost you are mentioning derives from able men who are not available for work, during the 1-2 years they spend in the Army. Considering that a representative duration of a man's productive age is about 40 years and considering a fairly stable # of men enlisted each year (depends on demographics), then that nation loses about 2/40/2=2,5% of it's workforce. I divided by 2 since women usually work in their vast majority and do not get enlisted. This leads to a great opportunity costs, unless we consider the following:

1. The vast majority of countries have more than 5% unemployment (in Europe it is 10% on average). This means that there is no actual lack of workforce.

2. A professional army gets subtracted by the workforce too. True, a professional army tends to be more efficcient in personnel, since it is free of the need to do the basic training of it's troops all over again every year or two. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that a professional army will be much smaller than a conscript one. It looks that way because usually these two types have different objectives (offense and campaigning the first, attrition and defense the second) and are usually on different levels regarding the intensity of use of expensive weapons.

One really can't say which type of army is more cost efficient. Practice has shown that it depends on the intensity level of capital use in said army.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by axi
Can anyone find data on the size of each country's military industry (annual sales in BN$)? It would be interesting to see who are the biggest net exporters and who are the biggest net importers of weapons. Then it wouldn't be difficult to see who the real warmongers are.

Actually, that would reveal nothing. A country that produces a lot of weapons can just use them locally, driving down net imports. On the flip side, a country that produces little or no armaments would naturally be a larger net importer.

BTW, the two largest weapons exporters are 1. Russia and 2. the US. It's been like that for pretty much the whole Cold War and beyond, IIRC, and they tend to switch positions from time to time (the US held the #1 spot for the previous 5 years, for example). Other large exporters are France, Britain and Germany. Basically, the largest industrial countries export the most weapons...surprise surprise.

The largest importer is China.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kepler
Um, according to that list Italy spends more on defense than Israel. Iraq and North Korea aren't even on the list, so we're asked to believe they spend less than... Sweden?

Yep. Italy is a first world country of 60 million people. Just compare the navies of Italy and Israel, for a start. Same thing goes for Sweden (smaller than Italy, obviously, but armed to the teeth) vs. Iraq or North Korea. Also, compare the amount of leading-edge (read: extremely expensive) weapons first world countries have to Iraq or North Korea. You could also compare pay, costs of training exercises, availability of spare parts, etc.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
They do kickass potstickers though.

The military or China? I love steamed potstickers, and that wonderful sauce that goes with it.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The military or China? I love steamed potstickers, and that wonderful sauce that goes with it.

I'm a lazy American; I just buy them from Trader Joe's.

[Alinestra Covelia]

According to The Economist magazine (with whatever prejudices and biases it may have), America is the largest exporter of arms and Taiwan is the largest importer. Take this information with however much salt you think is necessary - the Economist is a UK publication and is openly procapitalist, antisocialist in its leanings.

Mr President - while your assertions concerning China's military are true, I feel that some further context could clear up the issue.

It kind of gives people the wrong impression when you hold their soldiers hostage (even ones who were spying on you).

I'd have hoped that the safe return of these soldiers indicated that China's policy is a great shift away from its Cold War nadir. I also hope that people correctly interpret America's reduction of spy missions along Chinese borders to be a sign of reconciliation, and not as weakness. Ask yourself the question - what would an American court have decided to do against a Chinese or Cuban aircrew in an inverse situation?

And when you try and launch satellites to compete with theirs.

What constitutes 'compete'? Do Japanese satellites 'compete' with America's? How about European nations'? How about Russia's? Bear in mind that private Chinese firms have been fighting for lucrative contracts to launch American satellites into space, and American space bureaux have been working for the same agreement, counter to American government forbiddances. Would this really happen between two countries that are tearing at each others' throats?

And when you put advanced systems that track their satellites on small Pacific islands.

See the point about satellites above. It seems you're defining the ethics of an action more by the perception of the person performing it, not by the action itself. This is similar to journalist who say that poor teenagers are "causing mayhem and trouble" but that rich teenagers are "harmlessly sowing their wild oats" - both are essentially the same thing. Of course, most countries' leaderships are implicit in pretty much the same set of hypocrisies...

And menace their allies with missiles and jet fighters.

Bear in mind that many nations that are allies of China undergo similar harrassment by the US and its allies (Iraq's no fly zones, Palestinian border controls and urban checkpoints). The Taiwan problem is a fascinating and complex one, and I have my views on that as both an American citizen and a Chinese-raised person but they are far too long to air here.

I'd love to discuss them by email if you like.

I'm not one for oversimplifications - China is neither the benign martyr that some of my relatives make it out to be, nor the ravenous oppressor that some of my classmates in America make it out to be. The exact same thing can be said of America. The challenge is to look at the potential weaknesses and strengths of both countries and try to work out, given the situation, what solutions are likely to be most beneficial to everybody.

Potstickers are always a welcome addition to any tricky problem, though. I personally prefer a dash of vinegar and some refined soy sauce.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
I also hope that people correctly interpret America's reduction of spy missions along Chinese borders to be a sign of reconciliation, and not as weakness.

What exactly was thier to reconcile? The missions are/were well within legal boundaries and it was the Chinese that were at fault for the accident and in violation of the law for thier conduct afterwards.

[Az]

Bear in mind that many nations that are allies of China

So do you think that China considers Iraq it's ally?

[DanS]

Ali: So far, it appears that China is understanding our goals and not taking the snooping and budgets directed at a potential adversary too personally.

In this sense, the ramming of the intel plane and its aftermath were good, because it cleared up a lot of uncertainty around both our new administration's and China's intentions--our inentions being that we would brook no challenge, but that we had nothing offensive in mind.

[Alinestra Covelia]

DinoDoc - I don't assert that the American spy mission was illegal. I assert that it was undiplomatic. The whole situation after the spy incident could have come out much worse than it did. That's what I mean by reconciliation. You appear to assume that reconciliation implies blame, which was not the point of my post.

Azazel - Insofar as the doctrine of "My enemy's enemy is my friend", yes I do consider China and Iraq to be partners of a sort. This doctrine should not come as a surprise to any Americans, seeing that America (and most other nations) practice this more often than not.

DanS - I'm in agreement with you. Personally, I'm very surprised (pleasantly, mind you) that relations between China and America are currently as good as they are. President George W Bush made it very clear during his election that China was a "competitor", not an "ally". And the spy plane incident also demonstrated that the Chinese government was willing to use an accident to leverage and pressure America diplomatically.

More than a year later, China is moving to respect copyrights and cut down on weapon exports, and America has warmed greatly to China in its foreign policy. I call that progress.