Is Your Country Spending Enough On Defense?

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Maj
The government here has been steadily cutting the military budget for quite some time now. Increasing funding for better equipment and training, plus accomodating more troops, would help bolster Canada in the international circuit but I'd much rather see money go into the domestic institutions that guide and improve lives (i.e. education and healthcare)rather than those that (some may argue help lay the groundwork for the aforementioned) ultimately destroy them.

But, with the way things are going right now I say we won't need an army a few decades from now given our increasing affinity with the United States. Maybe they'll at least let us keep a make-believe government so we can pretend we have our hands on the reigns.

I agree wholeheartedly. Although I strongly believe in dimplomacy first, it's sickening to see what a pile of wishy washies we've become in this country.

We don't necessarily need a strong miltary to defend ourselves, but we should be in a position to help out our allies (whom we would expect to help us out) when the situation arises.

Our perfomance in the Second World War was impeccible, and a source of great pride. Unfortunately we've rested on those laurels for far too long. Hard to believe that we once had the world's third most powerful navy.

Your comment on our dwindling sovereignty, the sadest truth I can think of.

 

[sonorakitch]

"The UN has estimated that it would cost $50 a person for everyone in the world to have adequate drinking water. "

What a bunch of garbage. Did you actually read this before you posted it?

I highly doubt it would cost only $50.00 a person to provide the infrastructure and the resource of clean drinking water across earth. Please post a link about this if you found it on the web.

~Chris

 

[Greadius]

I think we need to cut military spending...
The threat level that requires a giant military really doesn't exist. Terrorists aren't going to start invading California; amatterfact, if every nation on Earth began to mobilize to invade now we'd still have a military advantage for at least a year... that is overdoing it. We need to cut the 'active' reserve and Federal money to National Guard... a large standing Army is completely obselete in our current security environment.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Here some interesting facts, the US has spent $50 billion - $60 billion on its "Star Wars" program. The UN has estimated that it would cost $50 a person for everyone in the world to have adequate drinking water. The UN has also estimated that there are 1 billion people without adequate drinking water. The total cost of supplying these people with the drinking water is, surprise, surprise, $50 billion. Thats not all, the US has estimated that in the future they will spend another $50 billion on "Star Wars".

$50 * 6 billion people is 300 billion... where did it say that it was only $50 a person who doesn't have clean drinking water.
Not to mention the complete impracticality of the idea that free (assuming the budget came from something like NMD), clean drinking water is economically sustainable. How long will having the clean drinking water last for $50? A week? A month? A year?

 

[animepornstar]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
butter only works on places no one cares about like sweden.
also, sweden were always neutral.. they didnt fight against the germans, they let the germans put any rails for anyone in their land.

not exactly. furlough soldiers (is that right name for them?) was allowed to use the swedish railroad after threat of war and the agreement was cancelled 1943.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
$50 * 6 billion people is 300 billion... where did it say that it was only $50 a person who doesn't have clean drinking water.
Not to mention the complete impracticality of the idea that free (assuming the budget came from something like NMD), clean drinking water is economically sustainable. How long will having the clean drinking water last for $50? A week? A month? A year?

He talked about 1 billion people who are without clean drinking water. So it's 50 billion $. And even if it was 5000$ it would still be enough for 10 million people. But who cares if these figures are correct? It will not be done.
But it is a good example to put defense spending in perspective. There's always much talk about how many people can be provided with (just theoretical) security, while most people don't even look at how many people could be provided with (very real) goods to survive.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by Panda
Guns vs. Butter indeed...

I don't support an increase in the Finnish military budget, unless it's a temporary one (for a few years) to thoroughly modernise and re-structure (from compulsory military service to professional army).

I don't think that would be a good idea. If you modernize for a few years then stop you will just get behind again. I think the best way would be to make alliances and be a part of the developement and have other countries with similar values help with it. In that way you could hope to keep up with the superpowers (well, China has big army and Russia still has stuff laying around).

As to my thoughts on my country, the US of A, increase spending on homeland defense and modernize our equipment overseas. I really think we could be doing a better job. I think the military personel are getting paid enough, this coming from an ex-soldier who said the same thing while I was in (PS I am making less on the outside, for now ).

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by sonorakitch
"The UN has estimated that it would cost $50 a person for everyone in the world to have adequate drinking water. "

What a bunch of garbage. Did you actually read this before you posted it?

I highly doubt it would cost only $50.00 a person to provide the infrastructure and the resource of clean drinking water across earth. Please post a link about this if you found it on the web.

~Chris

As an engineer who has worked in the field, this figure is quite possible.

The cost of the quality of water we have in the industrialised world is far above this, but to produce simple dinkable water would require little more than sedimentation, basic filtering and boiling. Doesn't cost too much for this.

The infrastructure issue is a moot point, the statement means people having access to the water, i.e. getting it from a simple reservoir of cleaned water, not the luxury of running taps in the home like we have.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Well, I live in the USA so I couldn't really vote. We don't need an increase, decrease, or decrease in govt spending. And I wasn't about to vote Don't know, Don't care. Perhaps this poll should've had another option at: Leave it where it is.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Well, I think my home country (M'sia) will need to increase defence spending; if only to keep the likes of Simon and Andycapp from invading.

Seriously, we do need a bigger army cos we're lying next door to the Indonesian giant, which seems to be getting more chaotic with each day. Also to crack down on the 100Ks (possibly) millions of illegal Indonesians, Filipinos and Thais within our borders.

 

[Ren]

No, I don't think my country (Australia) is spending nearly enough on defence.

 

[MrPresident]

Enemies towards the western culture means the western culture violates the true values of the islamic culture.

This is very true because you must remember the great differences between islamic and western culture. Western culture is at the opposite end of the scale to Islamic countries. It is like (not the same) Fascism and Communism. We are natural enemies. This does not mean we should be enemies but it is easy to understand why many people in the Islamic world can see the West as an enemy. If you want an example of Western culture violating the values of the Islamic culture, take the treatment of women. We all know that in Western culture Woman are meant to be equal to men, equal in employment, in rights, treatment etc. In Islamic culture women have lots of restrictions such as the way they dress, who they travel with, what rights they have, etc. So someone in an Islamic country looks at the way the West treats women and thinks that this is wrong and an insult to their religion and so builds up hatred.

I highly doubt it would cost only $50.00 a person to provide the infrastructure and the resource of clean drinking water across earth. Please post a link about this if you found it on the web.

There is some misunderstanding, this figure is the cost of providing access to clean drinking water. Not the cost of giving people free drinking water. I have a quote from the five-day international freshwater conference in Bonn attended by 118 countries.

Estimates for required global investment in all forms of water-related infrastructure vary widely up to 180 billion U.S. dollars annually, compared to a current estimated level of 70-80 billion dollars.

Well, I live in the USA so I couldn't really vote. We don't need an increase, decrease, or decrease in govt spending. And I wasn't about to vote Don't know, Don't care. Perhaps this poll should've had another option at: Leave it where it is.

Just because you live in the US doesn't mean you can't vote, although I understand why may think that voting doesn't work. The reason you think you can't vote is because you think that there is not an option for you. However I already thought about this and seeing that there is no poll in the world which could provide enough options for everyone to feel happy I put in an other option. This option is for anyone who wants to vote but doesn't agree with the above answers to question i.e. people like you. Next time think about what you are complaining about and then I won't have to waste my time.

 

[knowltok2]

Two points:

1. If all it will cost is $50 billion dollars, why is the rest of the world spending its time pointing at how the US spends its money? If it is that important of a goal, with that low of a price, I would think that the world could come up with that money without the US's help. Even if not, the rest of the world could come up with a significant chunck, and thus provide safe drinking water for, say 700 million people. Step to the plate and take care of a few problems even if the US doesn't help. Or is part of that $50 billion military expenditure to force dictators to allow you to constuct the infrastructure?

2. Mr. President: Yes, you included an 'other' option, but I count myself as one of those who would like to see more choices in your polls. No offense is meant, hopefully none will be taken.

 

[MrPresident]

why is the rest of the world spending its time pointing at how the US spends its money?

Personally I point out how the US spends its money because firstly it is the most developed country in the world. It is the richest and so should pay the most money towards such projects because it can afford too. This however is not reflected in the statistics which puts America's total foreign aid at 0.1% of GDP. That is compared to the UN's recommendation of 0.7% of GDP. So it is clear that America is not paying its way, we as citizens of this world have a right to question what America is spending this 0.6% on. As for your claim that America helps get rid of dictators to allow the construction of the infrastructure, I find this hard to believe. I don't want to get into the reasons for America wanting to topple dictators but I think they have more to do with national security than goodwill. Also I believe that America, especially the CIA, has had a hand in installing these dictators (or at least funding them) in the first place. I agree that the rest of the world should come up with a significant amount of the money for world improvements. However you should ask yourself and you representitives, how can we claim to be leaders of the free world when we don't give our fair share in improving it? The world needs America's help, so far you have not heard our call.

As for "other option-gate" I do see the point that a further one option stating "leave it alone" should have been added. But what is done is done. So either vote increase or decrease (remeber even a one pence/one cent change still counts as more/less spending) or if you can't bring yourself to do this then please don't point it out on the thread just vote other. And for those of you who refuse to vote other as a matter of principle, I first wonder how a person can take such a poll so seriously, secondly I offer the choice of abstaining.

 

[knowltok2]

I didn't claim that America topple dictators. What I meant was, is part of the $50 billion that is needed military expense to force nations to allow this project?

If you can post the link to the site where you got your GDP aid percentages, I would appreciate it.

Even if you facts are correct about the US not doing its part, is that reason to sit and do nothing? Why hasn't the rest of the world provided safe drinking water to say, every place that needs it, except the Western Hemisphere. Then you can point this out and place the onus clearly on the US for not helping out, and your point would be highlighted by the proximity of those not helped. That may not be a fair way of distributing the help, but it is certainly no worse than waiting until you think the US is contributing fully.

Truthfully, I would bet that you could write the people who came up with the $50 billion figure a check for that exact amount, and they couldn't come close to doing it. I think the nations of the world know this, and that is why they won't unilaterally pony up the money to start the project.

 

[MrPresident]

What a bunch of garbage. Did you actually read this before you posted it? I highly doubt it would cost only $50.00 a person to provide the infrastructure and the resource of clean drinking water across earth. Please post a link about this if you found it on the web.

http://www.osearth.com/resources/wwwproject/what04.shtml

It states

. Installation costs range from less than $5.00 per person served to close to $100. The lower cost figure would result in a total needed expenditure of less than $10 billion to meet the needs of all the people in the world who currently do not have access to clean water while the higher figure would result in $175 billion. Using $50 per person as the benchmark, an investment in water and sanitation materials, training and programs of $10 billion per year for ten years would insure that all of the world's people were provided with enough water to meet their personal needs.

 

[knowltok2]

To back up MrPresident (When does that ever happen? ):

I would suspect that some thread readers may be reading too much into 'clean water'. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is going to come out of a tap in the home with hot and cold options. It could simply mean one central site for a village to go to to get clean water. I don't doubt the $50 billion figure so much as I doubt whether it will be allowed to be spent in all areas, and whether the investment will last in areas. That is not to say that it is not worth doing though.

 

[knowltok2]

Here's another angle on this water thing. What about the governments where this lack of clean water exists? Where they can, shouldn't the governments of places with unclean water be expected to pay more of the cost?

India for example spent over 10 billion dollars on their armed forces in 1997. I don't expect that it has gone down since then. By way of comparison, Pakistan spent just 610 million that year. It would appear to me that a nation such as India should be able to provide clean drinking water to its citizens without outside assistance.

Now I know you can take this precident and apply it to any nation on any standard it isn't the best at. I also know that there are nations that do not have the wherewithal to pay for this and do need the aid. But why should the world send aid to places like India when the Indian Democracy has made their own choice of Guns over Butter? You can bring up other nations that may pose a threat to India, but you'll not convince me that India couldn't safely shave a billion or two off of their military budget and still remain safe. You can also point out that the US and a dozen other nations could do this as well, and perhaps they should, but doesn't primary responsibility for a group of people fall first with their government?

I don't mean to attack India either, they were mentioned in the article, and apparently have made great strides towards fixing their water problems. Though apparently 20% of their rural population still is without clean water.

 

[History_Buff]

I'm Canadian,and my country needs defence spending. We barely even have a Navy, and we have the most coastline in the world.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by History_Buff
I'm Canadian,and my country needs defence spending. We barely even have a Navy, and we have the most coastline in the world.

Why does Canada need a larger navy? The coastline arguement doesn't hold up really. There aren't any credible threats to Canada by invasion from the sea. Canada also isn't generally in the business of projecting power, and without some form of carrier, a navy can't do very much of this any more.

I wouldn't have any problem with Canada increasing military spending if that is what you want to do, I just wouldn't think that spending it on a navy would be the best investment.

 

[MrPresident]

I'm Canadian,and my country needs defence spending. We barely even have a Navy, and we have the most coastline in the world.

Also as part of the Commonwealth, you are protected by the Royal Navy. And as we all know this is the best navy in the world. Personally, I think Britain may not need to spend more money but spend it a little wiser. We must be the most gullible nation when it comes to military expenditure, wel'll buy anything. The rifles we bought didn't work, they couldn't load, our radios also didn't work, during training in the Oman desert our tanks wouldn't work because we were using the wrong sand filters (you mean there is more than one type) and finally we and the Germans are building the Eurofighter which there is no need for and is way over budget.