I don't support the troops

[MobBoss]

All I am saying is that there is plenty of room for the US to cut military spending without becoming a weakling. I was exaggerating before about how much we spend, but we still spend twice what the second most powerful nation (China) does.

But as a percentage of GDP we actually spend less than quite a few countries dont we?

 

[cardgame]

Uhh... possibly, perhaps even probably.

% GDP doesn't matter if your GDP is tiny though

We still spend like 48% of the WORLD military budget... that's mind-boggling.

 

[Formaldehyde]

All I am saying is that there is plenty of room for the US to cut military spending without becoming a weakling. I was exaggerating before about how much we spend, but we still spend twice what the second most powerful nation (China) does.

No, we actually spend 7 times as much.

 

[Aegis]

But as a percentage of GDP we actually spend less than quite a few countries dont we?

True, however does using a lower GDP really substantiate the vast amount of money spent?

In Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

Consider the following:

The above sources compare the given fiscal year budget request with the latest figures for other countries, which are sometimes two years old. Still using those statistics for other countries, however, a comparison can be made here of the US Fiscal Year 2004 spending against other equivalent data:

* The US military budget was almost as much as the rest of the world’s.
* The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.
* The US military budget was more than 30 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $13 billion.
* It was more than the combined spending of the next fourteen nations.
* The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
* The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $134.2 billion, 34% of the U.S. military budget.

Some of the above statistics come from organizations such as the Center for Defence Information, and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. This second one, for example has a section on Highlights for fiscal year 2006 budget request. It includes a tabulation of top 55 countries in terms of their spending, which has been produced as a graph here:
Military spending in 2004 ($ Billions, and percent of total) Country Dollars (billions) Percentage of total

Military spending in 2004 ($ Billions, and percent of total) Country Dollars (billions) Percentage of total

USA 399.1 43%
Russia* 65.2 7%
China* 56 6%
United Kingdom 49 5%
Japan 45.1 5%
France 40 4%
Germany 29.7 3%
Saudi Arabia 19.3 2%
India 19.1 2%
Italy 17.5 2%
South Korea 16.4 2%
Australia 11.7 1%
Turkey* 11.7 1%
Israel* 10.8 1%
Canada 10.1 1%
Spain* 9.9 1%
Brazil 9.2 1%
Netherlands 7.6 1%
Taiwan 7.5 1%
Greece* 7.2 1%
Indonesia* 6.4 1%
Sweden 5.9 1%
North Korea* 5.5 1%
Ukraine* 5.5 1%
Singapore 5 1%
Poland 4.4 0%
Norway 4.2 0%
Kuwait 4 0%
Iran 3.5 0%
Belgium 3.3 0%
Pakistan 3.3 0%
Colombia* 3.2 0%
Portugal* 3.2 0%
Vietnam 3.2 0%
Denmark 2.9 0%
Mexico 2.8 0%
Egypt* 2.7 0%
Czech Republic 1.9 0%
Hungary 1.7 0%
Syria 1.6 0%
Argentina 1.6 0%
Rumania** 1.5 0%
Cuba* 1.2 0%
Philippines 0.8 0%
Libya* 0.7 0%
Serbia-Montenegro 0.7 0%
Slovakia** 0.7 0%
Bulgaria** 0.6 0%
Slovenia** 0.5 0%
Sudan* 0.5 0%
Lithuania** 0.3 0%
Luxembourg 0.3 0%
Estonia** 0.2 0%
Latvia** 0.2 0%

If you are viewing this table on another site, please see http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp for further details.

Source: U.S. Military Spending vs. the World, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliefration, February 7, 2005

Notes:

* Figures are for latest year available, usually 2004. Expenditures are used in a few cases where official budgets are significantly lower than actual spending.
* * 2003 Figure.
* ** Joined NATO in March 2004.
* Source uses FY 2006 for US figure. I have used 2004 to try and keep in line with other countries listed.
* Due to rounding, some percentages may appear as zero.

http://www.19.org/index.php?aid=312

No, we actually spend 7 times as much.

I was trying to be conservative b/c I couldn't look it up.

 

[MobBoss]

Uhh... possibly, perhaps even probably.

% GDP doesn't matter if your GDP is tiny though

Why not? A budget is a budget isnt it?

True, however does using a lower GDP really substantiate the vast amount of money spent?

Absolutely. We spend more on it because we have so much more money to spend on such things. A National Defense is indeed the primary reason for the federal government to even exist. (imho of course).

 

[Luckymoose]

I'm right wing and I don't support the troops who are wasting money in Europe.

 

[Camikaze]

As to cutting the military....no. To quote one of those Romans from the total war games (paraphrased): 'He that does not prepare for war, ensures it.'

So a cut in military spending would make the US incapable of preparing for war? How on Earth does a large portion of the rest of the world manage to avoid war with less military spending?

 

[JollyRoger]

The size of the U.S. military isn't so much as for defense as for a convenient place to provide a nice living for a segment of the population.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I couldn't agree more. I think it is time we made what is perhaps the most overprivileged and generally lazy group of people on the government dole to find real jobs for a change. And they can start by dropping their incredibly expensive sponsorships of various racing teams and even one sanctioning body. They don't need to advertise any more than the IRS or FBI do.

Moderator Action: Trolling - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MobBoss]

So a cut in military spending would make the US incapable of preparing for war? How on Earth does a large portion of the rest of the world manage to avoid war with less military spending?

Well, to answer you. They dont.

However, the USA remains one of the last nations on earth with the ability to back its foreign policy up with actual military projection ability.

Actually, I would advocate in growing the military manpower-wise, as opposed to shrinking it for the sole reason the combat rotation schedule would benefit from an increase in deployable units overall.

The size of the U.S. military isn't so much as for defense as for a convenient place to provide a nice living for a segment of the population.

Why dont you enlist and see how nice a living you make as a PV1.

Exactly. I think it is time we made what is perhaps the most overprivileged and generally lazy group of people on the government dole to find real jobs for a change. And they can start by dropping their incredibly expensive sponsorships of various racing teams and even one sanctioning body. They don't need to advertise anymore than the IRS or FBI do.

Oh please.

Before you really want to get insulting with such ad homs you should remember that members of the military are posters here.

Moderator Action: Just report the posts.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, I would advocate in growing the military manpower-wise, as opposed to shrinking it for the sole reason the combat rotation schedule would benefit from an increase in deployable units overall.

Or do away with the need for a combat rotation schedule. It doesn't seem that everyone has taken a turn in the rotation yet anyway.

Moderator Action: Take care in what you post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Why dont you enlist and see how nice a living you make as a PV1.

Because I can make a nice living without enlisting. Anyway, assuming I could still enlist, I'm sure that I wouldn't have to start as a PV1.

 

[Karalysia]

Privatize the military. Let free market military cotracters handle our defense needs. The government can;t do anything right.

 

[MobBoss]

Because I can make a nice living without enlisting. Anyway, assuming I could still enlist, I'm sure that I wouldn't have to start as a PV1.

No, you could at least come in as a PFC. Thats going to net you a whopping $20,400 a year.

Still think thats a nice living?

 

[JollyRoger]

No, you could at least come in as a PFC. Thats going to net you a whopping $20,400 a year.

Still think thats a nice living?

I would come in as an officer, but still have to take a pay cut. The segment of the population I was talking about was the segment where a bureaucratic career is brighter than they could expect in the private sector. Obviously, some of us have a set of bootstraps better designed for getting rewarded in the free market.

 

[MobBoss]

I would come in as an officer, but still have to take a pay cut.

Your statement wasnt specific to the officer ranks, and by far the majority of soldiers are indeed the lowest earning enlisted soldiers.

The segment of the population I was talking about was the segment where a bureaucratic career is brighter than they could expect in the private sector. Obviously, some of us have a set of bootstraps better designed for getting rewarded in the free market.

I humbly point out that government student loans that will never be paid off pretty much equal that which you are complaining about. Both are just as much government bootstraps as the other. I guess some of us like to pretend their bootstraps werent created by the same vendor...

 

[Camikaze]

Well, to answer you. They dont.

*Picks random country*

Austria seems to be just fine with 0.9% expenditure.

And even Australia, a country involved in two wars presently, is only in those two wars because the US started, not because of any lack of military expenditure.

Saying that higher military spending by a country means less war for that country is clearly not accurate.

 

[MobBoss]

*Picks random country*

Austria seems to be just fine with 0.9% expenditure.

And even Australia, a country involved in two wars presently, is only in those two wars because the US started, not because of any lack of military expenditure.

Saying that higher military spending by a country means less war for that country is clearly not accurate.

Just a question. How well do you think the wars would be going if we solely relied on say, Australias effort?

 

[JollyRoger]

Your statement wasnt specific to the officer ranks, and by far the majority of soldiers are indeed the lowest earning enlisted soldiers.

Why would I be like the majority? Why would I have to specify officer when it should be a given?

I humbly point out that government student loans that will never be paid off pretty much equal that which you are complaining about. Both are just as much government bootstraps as the other. I guess some of us like to pretend their bootstraps werent created by the same vendor...

The government has agreed with my current level of payment. Plus, they only partially funded one segment of my education. Undergrad was all me (no grants or loans or parents money). Law school was private loans, government backed loans, and part-time jobs. So yeah, like most in my position from a working class background, I got some help - probably less than the government spends in the first year on a PV1 even if I never paid back a dime and you neglect the enhanced tax revenue the government is making from me over the course of my lifetime.

 

[Camikaze]

Just a question. How well do you think the wars would be going if we solely relied on say, Australias effort?

Not very well (although they didn't exactly go too well anyway), but that's irrelevant to whether or not high military expenditure prevents wars. In fact, given that Australia certainly wouldn't have started such wars on its own, it can be seen that higher military expenditure was a contributor to the wars starting, completely opposite to your contention.

 

[klaidonis]

Hey guys, if you're gonna cut you defence spendings just warn the allies beforehand. To die in Toronto from Russian or Chinese nuclear bombs is not a pleasant thing for sure.