Military Expenditures as a percent of GDP

[Toad]

From the CIA factbook:
 http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/indexgeo.html


United States

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $276.7 billion (FY1999 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.2% (FY1999 est.)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $6.9 billion (1997)

Austria

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $1.7 billion (FY98)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY98)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $452 million (1998)  

Belgium

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $2.8 billion (FY99)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY99)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $764 million (1997)

Denmark

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $2.822 billion (FY98)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.7% (FY98)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $1.6 billion (1997)

Finland

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $1.8 billion (FY98)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2% (FY98)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $379 million (1997)

France

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $39.831 billion (FY97)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.5% (FY97)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $6.3 billion (1997)
 
Germany

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $32.8 billion (FY98)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.5% (FY98)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $5.6 billion (1998)

Greece

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $4.04 billion (FY98 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA%

Economic aid - recipient: $5.4 billion from EU (1997 est.)

Ireland
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $732 million (FY98)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 0.9% (FY98)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $240 million (1999)

Italy

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $23.294 billion (FY99)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.7% (FY99)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $1.3 billion (1997)

Luxembourg

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $131 million (FY98)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1% (FY98)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $160 million (1999)

Netherlands

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $6.956 billion (FY98)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA%

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $3.4 billion (1999)  


Portugal

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $2.458 billion (FY97)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.6% (FY97)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $271 million (1995)

Spain

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $6 billion (FY97)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.1% (FY97)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $1.3 billion (1995)

Sweden

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $5 billion (FY98)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.1% (FY98)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $1.7 billion (1997)

United Kingdom

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $36.884 billion (FY97/98)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.7% (FY97/98)

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $3.4 billion (1997)

 
Canada

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $7.4 billion (FY97/98)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY97/98

Economic aid - donor: ODA, $2.1 billion (1997)


EU + Canada spent 174.3 billion on their collective military.

US spent 276 billion.


EU + Canada net donated aid was ~23.4 billion.
 
US donated aid 6.9 billion.


Roughly a 100 billion difference in military spending. Roughly 16.5 billion difference in donated aid. Be nice if we could spend even HALF of that military difference on aid.

[Hangtime]

India; China; Japan; Israel?? Wonder what percentage THEY spend on their military..  I'm just curious.  

My, My... lookit the French! The scurvy frogs are spending some heavy cash on their military. Wonder what their sub forces look like these days. Who are they gearing up to tango with I wonder... Luxembourg?

Aid?? Why spend more?

Be better if we redirected what aid we do send to places where the intended needy recipients actually receive it.

[Sandman]

Hell... I'm a liberal and I disagree.

More aid... psshaw...

FWIW, the government spends 95% of their time arguing over 5% of the money. The majority of the budget is already obligated before the legislative branch gets to start making changes. If you want more cash for aid or anything else, the place to look is entitlements.

Oh... and I must also say... you want more money? End the drug war.

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]

[GRUNHERZ]

WTG USA #1 USA #1  USA, USA, USA.....     lol

[GRUNHERZ]

BTW Israel is 9.4% GDP


They seem to wanna really wanna kill them Palestinians something bad......

[zapkin]

test

[Hangtime]

Yah gotta love the CIA... thanks for that link Toad. Now they know where we are.  

Oddly enuff, just about every country on that list is shellin out big bucks for aid.

To who?

[andy rooney mode]

Ever wonder what all the countrys of the worlds aid output looks like in total $... (gawd; that's gotta be a huge number!)

Ever wonder what that number looks like compared to the population number of the really 'needy' nations?

(Be prepared to debate the list of "needy nations".  )

Ever wonder how much less our country would have to spend on aid if all the other countrys didn't send THEIR aid donations to each other?

Ever wonder what would happen it we spent HALF what we sent abroad in aid on our own destitue, sick, infirm and old citizens?

[/andy rooney mode]

[Toad]

Well, the part that makes me wonder is WHY we are spending so much on OUR military.

We clearly have one of, if not THE, largest military in the world. We can fight land wars, naval wars, air wars and we have a very large ballistic/nuke capability.

Where's the threat TO THE US that justifies this?

Answer: There really  isn't one. We maintain most of this huge capability for the benefit of others. In return, we get insulted.  

Assume for a moment we brought 95% of our deployed troops and assets home to the US.

Hearken back to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Remember how long it took ALL those nations to assemble an overwhelming force to attack what amounted to a third-rate military power?

Now think about a nation or group of nations trying to mount an "air-land battle" against the US. First of all, they'd need a jumping off point against the US, like Canada or Mexico. Unlike Iraq, we have a real Navy. It's doubtful the cargo convoys would arrive uneventfully. The "air bridge" bringing supplies would bump up against an Air Force that, unlike Iraq's, is pretty capable.

So, while all that is pretty far-fetched anyway, it's still highly unlikely that the US is going to be invaded in the classic sense. Those two big oceans are pretty amazing allies.

We already have a larger ICBM/sub/bomber nuke force than we need to counter any MAD type threat from anyone.

In reality, about the only thing we have to fear is the nuke/bio terrorist type scenario. Deploying a large military overseas is more likely to increase the possiblity of that scenario than lessen it.

So why are we maintaining this huge military machine overseas? It's not to defend the territorial integrity or security of the US, obviously. In fact, it most likely increases the chance of a serious terrorist attack on the US.

Seems pretty pointless to do it for people that continually revile us.

Just my .02.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Hangtime:
My, My... lookit the French! The scurvy frogs are spending some heavy cash on their military. Wonder what their sub forces look like these days. Who are they gearing up to tango with I wonder... Luxembourg?

Wrong ...


We are making provision to invade Canada  
Obviouly next target will be Louisiana   and some other states on the way to Louisiane  

[popeye]

"So why are we maintaining this huge military machine overseas? It's not to defend the territorial integrity or security of the US, obviously."

Maybe to protect "our interests" on foreign soil: cheap oil and governments that are "hospitable" to US corporations.

"Seems pretty pointless to do it for people that continually revile us."

If we were really trying to "do something" for those people, the military budget, and foreign aid budget numbers would be reversed.

Also, don't forget that the military has powerful friends in congress, who are getting major funding from military contractors.  If they can't find a real need to spend money, they will invent one.

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by Hangtime:
Oddly enuff, just about every country on that list is shellin out big bucks for aid.

To who?

Not long ago i read on a website just about this, need to find the site again. Most of the aid goes for tide-disaster(sp?) victims, earthquake victims, countrys like somalia where's not enough food (no rain only desert) for the people ect.
Another part is helping some countrys
build up (reconstruction) after a war (ie. croatia, yugoslavia).
Well its mostly for people thought to help who cant help itself anymore, any we have really alot natural-catastrophes(sp?) the last years.

[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Gh0stFT ]

[Toad]

Popeye,

Maybe it's long past time to let oil find its free market price? Might be a period of painful adjustment but wouldn't that stimulate alternative energy research and solve the problem of Detroit producing gas guzzlers?

Perhaps US corporations should assume some risk when they "go abroad" into politically unstable markets and production areas? Why should the US military be there to bail out SuperCorp when a revolution in Nowhersia threatens their factory? Perhaps they should have taken that into account when they built the factory? After all, there is a stable business environment in the US that would not include that risk, right? In the US, where our troops should be anyway?

There's jobs for the military at home; just not as many of them. Time we scaled back a bit. You can throw up your hands and let things continue status quo... or not. No matter how you slice it, the US does not need a military this large.  

In the same way, it's long past time for other countries to wean themselves away from the military shield of US troops. The situation that existed 60 years ago simply does not exist anymore.

Time to bring the troops home, seriously consider what we need to defend the territorial integrity of the US, perhaps provide a reasonably sized "quick reaction force" to help out in UN authorised events and then DOWNSIZE our military accordingly.

[Naso]

Originally posted by popeye:
"So why are we maintaining this huge military machine overseas? It's not to defend the territorial integrity or security of the US, obviously."

Maybe to protect "our interests" on foreign soil: cheap oil and governments that are "hospitable" to US corporations.

"Seems pretty pointless to do it for people that continually revile us."

If we were really trying to "do something" for those people, the military budget, and foreign aid budget numbers would be reversed.

Also, don't forget that the military has powerful friends in congress, who are getting major funding from military contractors.  If they can't find a real need to spend money, they will invent one.

Perfect center on target, Popeye!!  

It's sad Toad and Hang will never admit this  

[Zigrat]

we maintain the biggest military in the world because noone could ever ever f*ck with the united states. we have the strongest military in the world, and i hope we always retain that strength.

[Naso]

Keep you finghers (sp?) out of other's land  and/or economy and maybe nobody will care to f*ck you.

I guess.

(And remember, you dont save our arse, we were on the other side   )