Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Interesting article from the Economist;

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13314915&source=features_box4

Basically pointing out that US military expenditure is bigger than the next 14 countries. Also surprising to see the UK at number 2, I think it was France a couple of years ago.

You should click on the link, by the way, the chart is pretty cool, as Economist charts tend to be.

Oh, and I'm pretty surprised to see us Aussies on the list. Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!

Spain? who knew?

Who thought that russia was a big military power? They haven't been since they collapsed as a nation. Their military is in shambles compared to ours and chinas while populous is incredibly under-equipped and in sections poorly trained.

We are the military superpower.

ShumaGorath wrote:Who thought that russia was a big military power? They haven't been since they collapsed as a nation. Their military is in shambles compared to ours and chinas while populous is incredibly under-equipped and in sections poorly trained.

We are the military superpower.

I've seen it mentioned a couple of times here, can't remember anyone specifically, so when I saw the Economist article I thought I'd share.

sebster wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Who thought that russia was a big military power? They haven't been since they collapsed as a nation. Their military is in shambles compared to ours and chinas while populous is incredibly under-equipped and in sections poorly trained.

We are the military superpower.

I've seen it mentioned a couple of times here, can't remember anyone specifically, so when I saw the Economist article I thought I'd share.

I was saying that more in jest, people really do think we need to maintain current or increase general military spending. People just don't realize how much of an edge we have on the rest of the planet. It's annoying, conservative potentates who have every method of learning these facts bend the truth so hard that its insane. Military spending is out of control in this country and has been for some time. Thats not even a liberal stand, it's just obvious given the numbers.

ShumaGorath wrote:

sebster wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Who thought that russia was a big military power? They haven't been since they collapsed as a nation. Their military is in shambles compared to ours and chinas while populous is incredibly under-equipped and in sections poorly trained.

We are the military superpower.

I've seen it mentioned a couple of times here, can't remember anyone specifically, so when I saw the Economist article I thought I'd share.

I was saying that more in jest, people really do think we need to maintain current or increase general military spending. People just don't realize how much of an edge we have on the rest of the planet. It's annoying, conservative potentates who have every method of learning these facts bend the truth so hard that its insane. Military spending is out of control in this country and has been for some time. Thats not even a liberal stand, it's just obvious given the numbers.

I agree on that one, but isn't it good to know your dad could beat up their dad? Or maybe I mean big brothers.

A lot of our military spending is in high-tech, which is really expensive, but it is obvious that nukes aside, Russia and China have nothing on us. Funny that with all of his talk of fixning our problems, Obama never made much of a big deal of reigning in this runaway military binge we're on. Doesn't anybody know that the cold war is over?

warpcrafter wrote:Doesn't anybody know that the cold war is over?

It's always cold in Russia...

So umm... just wondering ....

Around how much nukes does china have?

They said we have enough nukes to destroy earth 20 times over? does china have enough to destroy 1 time atleast?

warpcrafter wrote:Doesn't anybody know that the cold war is over?

Yeah, that's why we have the new rather nebulous 'Islamofascist' boogeyman to replace the 'commie pinko' boogeyman.

warpcrafter wrote:A lot of our military spending is in high-tech, which is really expensive, but it is obvious that nukes aside, Russia and China have nothing on us. Funny that with all of his talk of fixning our problems, Obama never made much of a big deal of reigning in this runaway military binge we're on. Doesn't anybody know that the cold war is over?

In fairness to him we're engaged in two wars simultaneously against non conventional opponents. Its cheaper to fight a short war then a long occupation. Also running on a platform of reduced military spending would have been political suicide.

I'm hoping he can run in 2012 on a reduced military platform, as that would mean that we'd be mostly out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If only there was a plan in place.,

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I'm hoping he can run in 2012 on a reduced military platform, as that would mean that we'd be mostly out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If only there was a plan in place.,

I think the cited figures exclude expenditure on Iraq and Afghanistan, as they’re special budgetary items and not part of normal military expenditure. I don’t think there’s even been a full costing of the Iraq war released.

China has been growing its military by double digits annually for the last decade-including 2008 and planned 2009.

Having said that I'm all for pulling troops out of all international locations except for 2-3 strategic bases. We've been involved in far too many wars to protect the world.

Frazzled wrote:I'm all for pulling troops out of all international locations except for 2-3 strategic bases. We've been involved in far too many wars to protect the world.

Wow. That was not something I expected to hear from you, Frazzled

Hey someone has to drag down the curve for the rest of us.

If you include the Department of Energy, whose main job is maintaining the nuclear stockpile, and Veteran's benefits, and para-military intelligence units the number is even larger.

I remember when Clinton tried to get the military to get an accounting system in place so we could at least track cost overruns and actual equipment inventories. Guess the status on that?

FWIW, Russia is nothing but a gas/oil company with an army.

Also FWIW, it would be much better to update the military in a smart fashion. Buying 183 F-22s is not going to do much to protect the Union nor is building another aircraft carrier. It's much more cost effective to build semi-autonomous units of skilled people in low intensity conflicts, which is what real contemporary conflicts are.

Those fgiures are BS.

For a start the Uk militasry budget and that of the US is full of bloat, also if you think you have real data for China guess again.

Isn't Russia's military privitized?

Last time I checked I could buy a russian APC for a million bucks or so.

Frazzled wrote:China has been growing its military by double digits annually for the last decade-including 2008 and planned 2009.

Yeah, and they can maintain that double digit increase for twenty years and they won't have caught up.

Not that things are bad as they are right now. It's a lot better its you guys dominating military spending than the Chinese. But the relative scale is something to keep in mind when folk start talking about how hard hit the US was by the past budget cuts...

Having said that I'm all for pulling troops out of all international locations except for 2-3 strategic bases. We've been involved in far too many wars to protect the world.

As I pointed out in the American stereotype thread, your idea that the US acts purely to help others is very wrong. The US acts to protect its economic and political interests like any other powerful country would. The examples I listed in the other thread;

"You missed a few in there. There was the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953. The Bay of Pigs and the on-going quarantine of Cuba. The CIA engineered overthrow of the Syrian government in 1949. The support of the 70s coup that saw Pinochet come to power in Chile. The support of the coup in Guatemala in the 60s that led to 200,000 dead. Advisors and aircraft were provided in the ten year long war in El Salvador. In 2002 the CIA backed a coup against Chavez."

Orlanth wrote:Those fgiures are BS.

For a start the Uk militasry budget and that of the US is full of bloat, also if you think you have real data for China guess again.

Bad argument. The figures are compiled by an internationally recognised body, aware of the factors you cite. Of course the US and UK budgets have bloat, all military budgets have bloat by their very nature. The Chinese figures are not going to be understated, when a country is increasing its military spending to raise its status and regional dominance it doesn't understate it's expenditure, that's non-sensical.

So yeah, the figures aren't absolutely hard, but there was no claim they were absolute. They are about as good a guess as you're going to get, and any variation is unlikely to be large enough to cause a shift in rankings.

halonachos wrote:Isn't Russia's military privitized?

Last time I checked I could buy a russian APC for a million bucks or so.

No, it isn't privatised. Government forms, pays for and controls all troops, as any non-anarchic state would.

There is a lot of old surplus gear for sale. This is the same as anywhere else in the world, except Russia doesn't just sell boots and fatigues, they sell the cool stuff.

sebster wrote: The Chinese figures are not going to be understated, when a country is increasing its military spending to raise its status and regional dominance it doesn't understate it's expenditure, that's non-sensical.

Sorry you lack understanding of the easter mindset. Your idea of what is non-sensical might have some validity with western nations, and then only some. in the Far East the concept of conceal your strength goes far into the culture. Sun-Tzu and all that. You get secrecy everywhere, but this mindset goes beyond security clearances, it is about appearing less powerful than you are, not just keeping new gadgets out of the public eye.

Besides China doesnt flex its muscles and thus the west in general and panic stricken American populace don't overreact. The CIA has recently been 'revealing new information' on power projection for the 21st century, and the news is China will be BIG. Actually china already is big, bigger than admitted let alone thought, but it is in their interests in accordance with their doctrines not to flex muscles in the same way as the US in particular does.

It is common record on the level of hysteria caused by the Cuban missile crisis that nearly triggered Wolrd War Three. Nuclear missiles were in Turkey, as close as Cuba from the soviet point of view; the Soviets thought so what, if nuclear war comes we are both dead and noone wins. europe also lived and still,lives under the shadow of short and medium ranged nuclear attacks. However America doesnt think straight on issues like this, enjoys the illusion of invulnerability and really throws a hissy fit if reality encroaches. China doesn't want to burst that bubble, they are in the know, in control and by directing what most westerners especially in the Us think of them they have a strong advantage.

Note the thread a few days back about Chinese warships playing dangerous in the west Pacific, most here really still dont understand the thinking behind such moves. China is clever, China is subtle, China doesn't think like us, and most of us fail to undertsand how China thinks.

Regional dominance? You serious, China is a global player, but you might not see that the move is made.

Yeah, China(especially) and Russia are way off on that chart.

But what do I know, my spouse is only IN the military and I get to hear things that I'm not allowed to talk to anyone about.

If you honestly think we're not worried about China's military, you couldn't be MORE wrong.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I'm hoping he can run in 2012 on a reduced military platform, as that would mean that we'd be mostly out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If only there was a plan in place.,

Step 1. Nuke ***** [edited by Moderator]
Step 2. ???????
Step 3. Profit!

Lordhat wrote:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I'm hoping he can run in 2012 on a reduced military platform, as that would mean that we'd be mostly out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If only there was a plan in place.,

Step 1. Nuke ***** [edited by Moderator]
Step 2. ???????
Step 3. Profit!

See, fraz keeps telling me insults are not acceptable on this forum. So I'm going to PM this.

I have a cunning plan to help the economy... perhaps you can see it?...

Platuan4th wrote:Yeah, China(especially) and Russia are way off on that chart.

But what do I know, my spouse is only IN the military and I get to hear things that I'm not allowed to talk to anyone about.

If you honestly think we're not worried about China's military, you couldn't be MORE wrong.

QFT China are a growing power that should be a concern, of course this all depends on what they do in the future, but we really have to keep an eye on them.

Some thoughts, since this fits into my job.

1) China has more military age males than the United States has total citizens. Their defense spending has proportionally INCREASED every year far more than any other country. That said, they still spend less than the US does.

2) Feel free to pace any potential threats as a policy of choice. Pacing means you spend just enough to keep ahead of any threats. This assumes they'll make no breakthroughs, and that your intelligence is excellent. That leads to...

3) Assuming conflict is inevitable (which is a pessimistic assumption), you can pay an ounce of prevention (in funding) or a pound of cure. And quite a bit of that military funding trickles down into advances for civilian applications...like the cell phone you use.

The annual US defense budget is about $550M...not cheap, but hardly what the government wastes on dozens of other projects.

In short, I think our defense budget is a bit too high, but there are reasons for that, some of which are elucidated above. I'd like the military to become more efficient at spending it's money. But it is still probably more efficient than other Departments.

Two thoughts -

1) It is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one.

2) Hope for the best (soft solutions), plan for the worst (confrontation).

As a member of "The Industrial Military Complex", I can say that the U.S. government spends a lot of money on defense for 2 reasons.

1: Actual Defense
2: Jobs

And not necesarily in that order.


GG