posted
Well, into a new discussion. Why does Europe think they are so much better then America/rest of the world?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our militaristic ways (mostly of the past) have worked for us, and we are grateful for it.
Ummm, how can you consider our militaristic ways a thing of the past when we are still involved in a war of agression and spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined.
Granted it's been creeping up, but then, so has Chinese and European spending as well.
OK, This is a bit late but I just checked your link. From this link, In 2005, global military spending was $1083 billion. The US military spending was $522 billion (including appropriations for the Iraq and Afgan wars). So in 2005 we spent very slightly less than the rest of the world combined (yippy).
Those budget numbers for the US do not include current payments we are making past military actions, such as interest on borrowed money and veterans benefits. If you add, those in the US was spending substantially more on the military than the rest of the world combined in 2005.
Since then the situation has gotten worse. The US military budget for fiscal 2006 is 441.6 billion plust $120 billion for the Iraq and Afganistan wars. (The 2006 special budget for the includes only money for combat and no reconstruction money). The 2006 global numbers aren't available but since the US military spending has been growing significantly faster than global military spending, chances are very good that we are now over the 50% mark even if we ignore interest on the debt and veterans benefits.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But does the world budget include the debt and other such things of the other nations? Plus, our economy allows for this, without significantly impacting our it. Don't forget that other nations, if they had the money, would spend just as much.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Possibly, but then you also have to remember that China is also greatly increasing it's military spending, and the UK, Germany, and France are all talking about increasing theirs as well, in an attempt to create a more mobile striking force as opposed to (in the case of France and Germany) a largely outdated support role ground forces.
The UK, France, and Italy are all purchasing new aircraft carriers next year, which will be one time costs, but will cause their budgets to jump slightly. Also, consider that the figures for global military spending don't include what the "coalition" is spending on Iraq, which while vastly less, all adds up in the end.
And, I don't think this trend will last for long. The US, while getting hundreds of billions of dollars in boosts in the last couple years, is heading for a slash in the near future. Rising budget deficits will cause deficit hawks and defense doves to look at our global military commitments and some things are going to get cut, you can count on it. Several programs have been cut in the past few years, a trend I think we can see continue. What's really questionable is the future of the Navy. New warship designs call for a totally new direction for shipbuilding, and the next generation of carriers will be smaller, cheaper and more efficient.
Either way I'm just quibbling with you, and I apologize, a bit. It's a moot point when the numbers are that close, and I can't deny either way that the US spends far, far too much on military matters. But, it should be pointed out that many billions of those dollars are used towards matters of WORLD protection, not just a selfish use of money for American interests.
And regardless, I'd be perfectly happy to see America's funding for it's military drop by a hundred billion dollars, and for the majority of those funds to come from support of foreign militaries, foreign military bases and less patrolling of international waters where US interests aren't involved.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ret, Probably not but since we have a much larger national debt than anyother nation, and military spending has been a larger fraction of our national budget than any other major country, I think we'd still come out way ahead.
I should also add that $441.6 billion 2006 US military budget is just the department of defense. Our nuclear weapons are all in the DOE budget and there is also military spending in the Homeland security budget. These total to an additional $114 billion in military spending.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, our military spending is only around 3% of our GDP. Other nations spend far, far, far more percent of their GDP, or just the same. Also, don't forget that we are in a time of war, and before the war, spending was significantly less. Most nations aren't in wars, and thus their spending can be quite low. We had a major attack on us, and had to boost funding to defend. Let us not forget September 11.
Our debt may be larger, but in proportion to our GDP, it is en route with other nations. We have to try to proportion things with the size of our economy and others.
As for your lower paragraph, yeah, you're right.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, it should be pointed out that many billions of those dollars are used towards matters of WORLD protection, not just a selfish use of money for American interests.
I guess that's a matter of perspective and is one of the perspectives that causes the world to view us as arrogant.
Take a look at the table. The US military expenditures are 8.5 times the next closest country. China, Germany, France and Russia could all ramp up their military expenitures considerably, and we would still be off the scale.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how that's really arrogance. When we spent hundreds of billions during the cold war to keep Russia from invading the crap out of Europe and other places there weren't as many complaints. No one seems to mind the fact that there's virtually no piracy around the world, certainly not of anything larger than a cruise ship.
And I concede the point that we should spend less. I'm all for reduced military spending. So long as the reduction in spending all goes towards deficit and debt reduction. We can buy more tanks when we have more money in the bank.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ret, I don't know where you got your numbers.
From the CIA world fact book, The US 2005 GDP was $12.77 trillion and military spending was 522 billion. That means we spent 4.08% of our GDP on military.
The UK GDP in 2005 (same source) was 2.275 trillion and they spent 51.1 billion on military or 2.25%.
China's GDP (2005) was 1.833 trillion, and their military expenditures were 62.5 billion (3.4%).
Germany's GDP (2005) was 2.83 trillion and their military expenditures were 30.2 billion (1.07%)
Even as a percent of GDP, we are way ahead.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare military expenditures as a percentage of the total federal budget rather than GDP? The government doesn't have the entire GDP available for spending money.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reticulum, your numbers are from 2004. Rabbit's are from 2005. She didn't mess up anything.
edit: Actually, I'm wrong about your numbers being from 2004. China's and Japan's are from 2004; the rest are from 2003.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
And wow, Russia's GDP is THAT low? I know that's still way ahead of a majority of the world's nations, but it's a lot lower than it could/should be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How exactly did you get your info, Rabbit? Since when are there different fact books? What didn't sound like me?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a breakdown of the military budget available online anywhere? What the crap are we spending all that money on?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it appears I was wrong. We do kind of spend a lot on our military proportionately...somewhat. So if we were to cut 100 Billion dollars from our military, Lyrhawn, what would you suggest we do to keep up the military with 1 out of every 5 $ gone? I think the military knows what they are doing. You can't be the best in the world and not know what you are doing.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fiscal 2006 defense budget of $419.3 billion represents a 4.8 percent increase over fiscal 2005 in real terms, but is about $3 billion less than projected for fiscal 2006 in last year's plan.
This budget does not include an expected administration request for $80 billion in supplemental appropriations, including $75 billion for the Defense Department to cover the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the current fiscal year.
Highlights of the spending include $108.94 billion for military personnel, including funding for a 3.1 percent pay raise and additional recruiting and retention bonuses for troops. That funding would include $4.1 billion for Special Operations forces -- boosting their numbers by 1,400 and increasing spending for language training -- underscoring the request's assessment that the forces have "contributed significantly" to the war on terror. The budget also allocates $416 million to start the repatriation of 70,000 military personnel from overseas bases.
In terms of weapons systems, procurement funding declined about 2 percent to $78 billion. Funding was stepped up for some systems considered important to the military's goal of modernizing: The Army's Future Combat System receives $3.4 billion, an increase of $200 million; and the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship gained an increase of $156 million to $613 million.
But the budget would cut funding for such weapons systems as the F/A-22 fighters, DD(X) destroyers, LPD amphibious ships, Virginia-class attack submarines and V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft.
posted
That money may be needed to maintain the current level of military action, but whether that level of military action is needed is very much up for debate.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't know where you got your numbers Reticulum.
My numbers for GDP are (2005) estimates from the CIA world fact book. My numbers for Military spending are from the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation (I posted the link to these numbers earlier). With the exception of the numbers for China and Russia, the data is all from 2005. I calculated the percentages.
I don't know how your percentages were calculated or where they come from. The military expenditures for US in the world fact book are for 2003, I haven't checked the other countries.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused by that break down of military spending.
They report a total of $419 billion. $108 billion of that is for personnel and $78 billion is for weapons. Where did the spend the other $233 billion dollars?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should also add that the budget requested in that article, is about 30 billion less than the budget that was approved.
(We should note that 30 billion is an additional $100 for every man, woman and child living in the US.)
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of stuff. Ship building, ordnance, base building, base maintenance, operational costs.
I'm reading a breakdown of the proposed budget for just the Navy FY2007.
As far as I'm concerned, we could cut the size of the army. We don't need a standing army that large. Cut it by 40,000 troops at least, and save billions. That's billions saved in salary costs, future training cost, maintenance cost, across the board it saves money. Increase spending on unmanned vehicles, and for that matter, don't cut the F/A 22 program that we've already spent billions on, it's near completion, and we've already cut the latest stealth helicopter design from Sikorsky and the Palladin weapons system.
From what I've read in this budget, it allows funding for the construction of 2 DDX Destroyers, and 4 LCR shallow draft ships, and one VA-class submarine. I'm a big navy fan, a powerful navy and a powerful airforce, as far as I'm concerned in this day and age, are more important than a massive ground force.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want a quick breakdown (all approx.)
$25 billion for Naval operations $2 billion for Naval training $4 billion for Naval administrative costs $4 billion for Marine operations/training and administrative costs. $10 billion for Naval aircraft procurement $10 billion for Naval aircraft R&D $2.5 billion for weapons procurement for Naval aircraft $10 billion for Naval shipbuilding $17 billion for additional Naval R&D/System development and demonstration
So, for the Navy and Marines anyway: $84.5 billion. And that doesn't include the cost of naval and marine salary, which is included in the abovementioned 100 billion+ figure.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what? Wasteful wars of aggression that produce no gain for the US but waste HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of tax payer dollars? And in the face of rising deficits, and a massive debt, I don't see how we can justify it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because our goal is to maintain the ability to defend our allies, our interests, and our power projection overseas. If we were to cut our soldiers, we would cut our vehicles, which would cost to get rid of. We would also have to store extra vehicles, aircraft, and uniforms. Our capabilities would lower, and we couldn't defend our interests overseas. It wouldn't be good, short to say.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where do you think we keep those vehicles and uniforms now? That's utterly ridiculous. We don't just get rid of vehicles, we store them, and do routine maintenance.
We project power like crazy. Each individual aircraft carrier group we operate could take on (almost) any one of the world's navies and fight it to a standstill. We can strike with impunity in almost any nation in the world at this point.
We're perfectly capable of defending our interests with a smaller, more mobile strike force, and more special operations soldiers. Our major allies are perfectly capable of helping themselves without our help. Europe doesn't need American military power to defend itself, and even if it did, it certainly shouldn't. They have no excuse.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Because our goal is to maintain the ability to defend our allies, our interests, and our power projection overseas. If we were to cut our soldiers, we would cut our vehicles, which would cost to get rid of. We would also have to store extra vehicles, aircraft, and uniforms. Our capabilities would lower, and we couldn't defend our interests overseas. It wouldn't be good, short to say.
How about we start defending our interests within our own borders before we go play Police of the World?
posted
That's what the military is for. The military does what the military does. Your adressing what the federal government should do. The military couldn't help in any of these things short of helping disaster reconstruction.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? Britain, China, and India don't seem to have a problem keeping their interests protected for a fraction of the cost.
The military is an ARM of the federal government. They aren't separate entities in the way that you are suggesting. Federal policy dictates what the military is used for.
You're suggesting the military simply exists to BE the military. The military exists for whatever purpose we decide to give it, and that purpose can be reduced and increased in scope, depending on the desires of the government, and god willing, of the people. And right now, the purpose of the military seems to be only to waste money for no return.
America should be focusing on itself. You need to help yourself before you can help others. Besides, I think it'd be good for our image, not that I really care what others think about is, goodwill is never a bad thing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: That's what the military is for. The military does what the military does. Your adressing what the federal government should do. The military couldn't help in any of these things short of helping disaster reconstruction.
Oh, you don't even WANT to know what I think of the military and the federal government and our glorious "disaster reconstruction."
posted
Pfhhh, SUCKS MORE THEN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE, is what disaster reconstruction was. Part of the reason Republicans will lose the next election. But then, it all depends on the administration.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because our goal is to maintain the ability to defend our allies, our interests, and our power projection overseas.
With the possible exception of defending our allies, I find those goals to be highly immoral.
Its one thing to defend your country from an invading force. It's quite another thing to defend your "interests" and "power projection". To me those are just euphanisms that allow us to call aggression defense. I mean seriously. When did anyone ever start a war that they didn't think was defending their interests? Hitler's invasion of Poland was to protect the interests of German speakers in Poland.
If we consider any war for US interests to be self defence, then we've basically justified every possible aggressive scenario that anyone would ever propose.
[ March 31, 2006, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
