Crazy Military Spending, Worldwide
JonnyPistachio
Florida Posts: 10,219
The United States remains the global leader in defense spending, surpassing the next closest country by more than eight times. I was just thinking about a comment made in the Rick Perry Thread, that he would like to bolster our national defense. I don't know if that was just an off-the-cuff remark, or meant building a wall along the Texas border, or spending more $$$ on the US military...But it got me thinking about how much the US spends on military. Its fucking amazing, and quite ridiculous. I need to look deeper into where the majority of this money is spent. Where do you think the most is misspent considering the military??
http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/sec ... vs_Global/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures
http://www.visualeconomics.com/military ... worldwide/
http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/sec ... vs_Global/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures
http://www.visualeconomics.com/military ... worldwide/
Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
are there any charts that show what countries spend based as a percentage of GDP or total budget? I would be interested to see if that ratio is similar or if we still dominate it by such a ridiculous gap.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
That wiki link includes the % of GPD, 2009. if you look at that, the gap isnt so ridiculous, but the overall spending is what I am looking at.
more like offense spending. hello middle east. :roll:
i'm guessing a lot of that goes into the operation (military pay) and a huge chunk goes into R&D.
i'm sure there is a little fraud mixed in there as well.
i would suspect as a percentage of gdp - the US would be nowhere near the top ... i would expect a lot of the middle eastern countries to be at the top of that list ...
Components Funding Change, 2009 to 2010
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
Total Spending $685.1 billion +3.0%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures
US is still near the top of the list
This list is based on the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Military Expenditure Database for 2010 (in constant 2009 US$). It also includes military expenditure data as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009.[1]
how about a press release from the chinese
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... ZN20110304
"METHODOLOGY
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an agreed-upon international definition for “defense expenditure.” Many countries count spending differently and, in some cases, transparency is an issue.
The analysis above uses data from The Military Balance 2010, the authoritative reference almanac produced annually by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Defense spending estimates for China and Russia, both of which regularly underreport their annual military budgets, have been reported using a methodology known as Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). The Military Balance typically uses market exchange rates to convert countries’ defense spending figures into U.S. dollars. In the case of China and Russia, however, the market exchange rates fail to fully reflect the purchasing power of the yuan and the ruble, respectively. To compensate for this, The Military Balance 2010 uses PPP. This allows for a more balanced calculation of the numbers. All of the figures for China and Russia in the analysis above use PPP figures, which are significantly higher than both officially reported and market exchange rate figures.
The bottom line is that this analysis uses the highest possible defense spending estimates for China and Russia."
It's all estimated, which means it is not accurate.
so what about the rueters link with a press release from the chinese government? is that acceptable
:roll:
If you believe the graph, then accept it.
hmm, procurement? We need to pull back.
good question.
the first link says this too:
"The U.S. operates 11 large carriers, all nuclear powered. In terms of size and striking power, no other country has even one comparable ship.
The U.S. Navy has 10 large-deck amphibious ships that can operate as sea bases for helicopters and vertical-takeoff jets. No other navy has more than three, and all of those navies belong to pure allies or friends. Our Navy can carry twice as many aircraft at sea as all the rest of the world combined.
The U.S. has 57 nuclear-powered attack and cruise missile submarines – again, more than the rest of the world combined.
Seventy-nine Aegis-equipped combatants carry roughly 8,000 vertical-launch missile cells. In terms of total missile firepower, the U.S. arguably outmatches the next 20 largest navies.
All told, the displacement of the U.S. battle fleet – a proxy for overall fleet capabilities – exceeds, by one recent estimate, at least the next 13 navies combined, of which 11 are our allies or partners.
Those numbers focus only on the Navy, but extreme examples like these span every branch of the Department of Defense."
US spends $ 2 Billion a week in Afghan. I don't know how much exactly for Iraq, but a cool Billion a week wouldn't suprise me.
If you multiply 3 Billion times 52 weeks, that's 106 Billion a year that we could subtract. I'm all for it.
Now consider that we know China is spending a vast amount more than they report. China and the US are not that far apart. They are in the middle of the largest military build up the world has ever seen. Military analysts suggest that China's current build up dwarfs the % of GDP that Germany spent in the lead up to WWII.
They just rolled out their first aircraft carrier this week, and several months ago tested a single-strike weapon that can sink our carriers up to somethin like 1200 miles. They are the most prevalent threat on the planet, and cutting our military spending is not a good idea, IMO. China ain't playin.
(Ending the Bush/Obama wars is a good idea. IMO)
Good topic.
i understand, you are new here, so it can be tough to not get caught up in the weeds of the exact number down to the penny.
i better call dick durbin and demand a full 100% accounting of the us military spend as well as a full review of gdp so that we can get the exact ratio's down to the 50th decimal point
BTW, I noticed no Pakistan on the graph. I know that their "enemy", India, has been on a decade plus military spending spree....so one would think that Pakistan would be attempting to keep up. I suspect that a nuclear power would spend more on the military than UAE or Spain.
damn, i hope we dont keep hearing about stuff like this:
"After examining hundreds of combat support and reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan, the U.S military estimates $360 million in U.S. tax dollars has ended up in the hands of people the American-led coalition has spent nearly a decade battling: the Taliban, criminals and power brokers with ties to both."
The House Appropriations Committee approved a bill that would swell defense spending by $11 billion.
The US Congress committee approved the legislation that would provide US$ 530 billion to the Pentagon out of which US$ 119 billion would be used for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Barack Obama requested a defence budget of US$ 657 billion but the approved bill provided was of US$ 649 hence the bill is approximately US$ 9 billion less than requested.
Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mike RogersMike Rogers said that if Pakistan wants to be an ally of the United States then they would have to meet the demands of the US. He added that Pakistan was playing a dangerous game by collaborating with China.