Military Expenditures as a percent of GDP

[Toad]

Dead,

The CIA may indeed be in error. They have been before.

I eagerly await your revelation of a site with better, "guaranteed" numbers.

Please do publish the link when you find it.

 

[Hangtime]

Dammo.. so easy to forget history, particularly when we didn't live it.

If the US had the same force deployments and foreign policy attitude in 1939 that it has now, Germany woulda never been allowed to touch Austria or the Czech Republic.. That 'mistake' cost about 60 million lives.

More History... England; tired of the expense of maintaining a Navy lost an entire empire.. as soon as the first world war broke out in europe, they were under strength.. the house of cards started to fall.

I see guys I respect look out on the world and say "Where's the Threat??" and I marvel at their blindness. Politicans being what they are; and starving people being what THEY are, how can you not expect the former to misinterpet the goals of the latter and leave us in a postion of being a beseiged island in a world gone mad?

Yah; it's an ugly job.. being the 'worlds policeman'... but dammit; better we stomp out the fires where they start rather than letting the blazes combine and take us back to where we were 60 years ago.

Our fathers and grandfathers made a big investment.. not just in Mobil, but in AMERICA, and what it stands for... and if that means we take some losses trying to help out the somali's; or stabilizing the balkans; or keeping the Chineese and India 'honest' in forein affairs, then so be it. Better we take the fight THERE than wait for it to come here.

Because sure as History; it will if we stick our head in the sand and wait for it..[/i]

[Toad]

Hang, I'm not forgetting history. Far from it.

However, the world HAS changed. Things are different than they were 60 years ago. The UN, piss-poor though it is, is far more effective than the League of Nations was. There is a collective history for all of us that wasn't there in '39. The world has seen what madmen on the march can do and not that long ago. Saddam gave a quick refresher course not long ago.

You'll note that in my above arguments I mentioned US forces that could deploy to support UN authorized actions.

I just no longer think it's necessary that the US be the ONLY policeman out there on the streets.

The critics that have been hurling the rotten fruits and vegetables deserve their chance to walk the easy beat while we cool it in the station house for a while.

Turnabout is certainly fairplay in this case.

Sandman's being a bit disingenuous when he suggests deployed forces are no more expensive than those based at home. Any time you stretch out supply lines, costs go up dramatically, in many areas.

You mention ignoring the "threat". Where? Where is the threat that requires us to maintain nearly 20% (probably more since I last checked a while ago) of our huge military in a deployed status?

Europe? NATO is still there; where's the opponent that can overrun the NATO nations even without us basing troops in Europe?

Asia? We couldn't stop China in a non-nuke land war in any place we tried. Our supply lines are way too long. (Same problem any would be attacker of the CONUS faces.) So that would be foolish. If it goes nuke, the B-2's are in Missouri anyway.  

Korea? Been there, done that. Time for the ROKS to be at least as tough as their poor neighbors to the North. I'm CERTAIN the UN would send troops anyway, right?   Doesn't have to be just us. We've got what, 30,000 troops on the DMZ? As if. You'd still be behind the power curve if the balloon went up.

Same for Taiwan.

Israel/Palestine? You KNOW we're not getting into that mess.

Iraq and the Gulf? Been there, done that. Same deal; we don't keep enough troops there to stop anything. They'd have to be reinforced. Again, I'm CERTAIN the UN would act and send troops as well.  

All in all, we don't need a military the size that we have now. No where close to it, in fact. Enough to defend the US and additional to provide a creditable rapid deployment force to augment the rest world community's forces when the UN chooses to act.

"All we are sa-a-a-a--a-a-y-y-y-y-ing is give PEACE a chance!"  

Beat your sword into a plowshare, brother. We've reached the promised land and the rest of the world community is going to step up and do their fair share. Sleep well tonight; the UN is awake.  

[Nashwan]

Toad, which countries do you think are not doing their fair share of peacekeeping?

[Toad]

Nashwan,

It's not our turn. It's BEEN our turn.

It's everyone's turn but ours.  

Call if you need help, OK?


 

[Toad]

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/03/military.base.closures/index.html

"One of those already voicing skepticism is Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, who criticized the Defense Department for targeting mainly domestic bases.  
 
Europeans are big enough, wealthy enough to defend themselves and what are they defending themselves against?" Lott asked. "I just think it is time we take a look at bases overseas as well."

Exactly.

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[Gadfly]

A technologically superior force is what we need, not numerically superior.  Pull back from our overseas deployments, and shed the pork barrel bases in the U.S.

At least we have given up on the 2-war delusion, and they are talking about cutting 25% of CONUS bases, that is a step in the right direction.

Spend some savings on the grunts, get em off welfare, at least.

[DingHao2]

Originally posted by -dead-:
China:
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $12.608 billion (FY99); note - Western analysts believe that China's real defense spending is several times higher than the official figure because a number of significant items are funded elsewhere
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.2% (FY99)

North Korea:
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $3.7 billion to $4.9 billion (FY98 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 25% to 33% (FY98 est.)

These two countries are probably are next msjor enemies.  China MAY be an exception, since they are growing increasingly capitalist and the Commies there may soon hafta give up power.  However, as long as the Commies are still in power there, they should remain an enemy.

North Korea: where exactly do you think all that money is going to in their military?  Probably nukes and nuke developement...Tis why an ABM shield is needed--the ABM treaty doesnt apply to them.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad:
Sandman's being a bit disingenuous when he suggests deployed forces are no more expensive than those based at home. Any time you stretch out supply lines, costs go up dramatically, in many areas.

That's not really what I meant. My point was that the services, the operational men and women out at the tip of the spear are expected to do more with less while the budget allocated for infrastructure seems to be increasing. If you're looking to decrease the defense budget, I think you need to look at infrastructure costs rather than operational costs.

And while you're at it... look at all that PORK.

   

REP. BARNEY FRANK: I think, you know, part of the problem is he knew what I was going to say, which is that it has frankly been he and his colleagues who have foisted on the pentagon unnecessary spending, wasteful spending for the C-130, because it was in Speaker Gingrich's district, four ships under Trent Lott's district, four extra planes elsewhere, the Pentagon, four more nuclear weapons than the Pentagon wants. I agree we should be dealing with readiness and the less glamorous aspects, but unfortunately congress has over the past few years voted in pork, and John McCain has cited $5 billion worth of what he calls pork - unnecessary spending generated by political needs domestically. If you hadn't done that, then we would have had that money available. And I'm prepared in the future to make the money available for the troops and for the ammunition but the waste and the B-2 bomber continues to be a great white elephant which has never been used, is almost certain never to be used, and at the cost of tens of billions of dollars.

   

From the Cato Handbook:
The 104th Congress added $6.9 billion in additional appropriations to the Pentagon's fiscal year 1996 budget and $11 billion more than the $254 billion the Clinton administration requested to the FY97 military budget. According to an assessment by the Pentagon comptroller, only about half the extra dollars Congress has added for weapons purchases accelerate programs already budgeted in long-range service plans. Of the remainder, about $3.3 billion, or 46.6 percent, qualifies as pork for programs not budgeted beyond FY97.

Much of the extra money was added to weapons systems the Pentagon did not request. Despite the fact that the administration does not want more funding for the B-2 bomber, for example, the FY97 authorization act added $212 million for it. Congress also added $539 million for the Aegis destroyer and $799 million for the New Attack Submarine.

The FY97 authorization act also added $82 million to the administration's request for B-1B bomber upgrades. That is a particularly wasteful expenditure. The Pentagon considers the B-1B's current capability sufficient to interdict enemy targets. Moreover, the General Accounting Office and the Air Force estimate that the modified B-1B would strike only a very small percentage of the Air Force's designated targets, and Unified Command officers have said they would use far fewer B-1Bs than even the Pentagon says are necessary.

According to John McCain, Congress added $7 billion in unrequested spending to the fiscal 2001 defense spending bill.

Oh... and one more time, say it along with me... End the drug war now.

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]

[Karnak]

It would be interesting to see Japan's defense spending as well as its donor spending.  I know it used to be the largest donor nation in the world, outdoing the USA.

Iran is actually a lot more modern than you guys give it credit for.  It is also in the process of struggling to decide its future.  By and large the Iranian people want to liberlize, witness their last two presidential elections, but the hard liners want to stay the course of hostility and oppression.  Hopefully they get things worked out ok.  Interestingly, Iran is the biggest blocker of opiates for the United States, indirectly of course.

Sandman,

I agree "End the drug war".  Its ludicrious and horribly destructive tou our nation, socially and financially.

The only way I can explain the drug war is that our government has gone off the deep end and declared a jihad on the stuff.  There is no rationality to it.

[Sundog]

FYI, I would treat all of those numbers with a good deal of skepticism, as they don't include spending on secret projects (If we knew, they wouldn't be secret!   ) and the U.S. spends more and more every year on secret projects (or so it is reported..lol).

I am sure that holds true for other countries as well.

[Sandman]

Well... the U.S. defense budget numbers are public knowledge, until you start looking for details. The bottom line is correct.

[Wotan]

good lord someone quoting barney frank.........

shshsh almost heard the lisp......

[Hangtime]

Demonstrate that our day to day lives AND our future security would be IMPROVED NOTICEABLY by a dramatic pullback from overseas staging and basing.

Not one thin dime 'saved' by the defense department will find its way into OUR pockets. But every cent cut; every foriegn posting abandoned will certainly destabilize and turn some parts of this planet into a powderkeg.

Whats stopping China from right NOW stepping into Indonesia to 'assist' the besieged communist rebels there? If we had withdrawn completely from the area, pulled out the two taskgroups patrolling there would Taiwan still be 'independent'??

No.

Our ability to AT NEED react GLOBALY
is critical. We've been doing it for the last 50 years; and America is doing just frekin fine. Lets do it for 50 more, by then; hopefully the world won't need babysitting. The information age will have had it's effect.

Lets check out when the job we set out to do is finished... and it ain't finished yet.

The UN is not competent at military affiars. By nature it cannot be anything but "too little; too late." Signing our protection of national intrests over to a body politic that has demonstrated countless times that it is incapable of enforcing it's own decrees is ludicrious.

Hold the line. The game ain't over yet.

[qts]

I know this is a bearpit, but I'm going to stick my oar in.

Toad, the world has *not* changed. Africa is a mess, and India and China are nations with burgeoning populations and limited areas. Both the latter can shrig off all but the most devastating nuclear strikes: 90% population loss would still leave each country with over 100 million people.

China will look to expand to Taiwan, Japan, Mongolia, and Russia.

India is hemmed in by the Himalayas but might try and expand westwards.

Israel/Palestine is set to explode. If the conflict can be kept non-nuclear, this might end up being a good thing, settling the issue for a very long time to come.

If the Argentine economy tanks, they might take another crack at the Falklands.