Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
My country spends ______ on nationnal defense.
enough 1 (7.7%)
not enough 5 (38.5%)
too much 7 (53.8%)
Total Votes: 13
Global Military Spending; How much does YOUR country spend?
Topic Started: Aug 8 2005, 12:10 PM (644 Views)
Mainiac
Lieutenant Commander
I think some folks have no real concept on how much money actually goes to defense spending, especially here in the US, where we spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined...

Here is a list which should cover most of the members of Sistertrek.

Globalsecurity.org

Quote:
 
World Wide Military Expenditures

Country Military expenditures - dollar figure  Budget Period 

World $950 billion  2004 est. [see Note 5] 
Rest-of-World [all but USA] $500 billion  2004 est. [see Note 5] 

United States $466.0 billion  FY04 actual [see Note 8]
China $65 billion  2004 [see Note 1] 
Russia $50 billion  [see Note 6]
France $46.5 billion  2000
Japan $44.7 billion  FY05 
Germany $38.8 billion  2002
United Kingdom $31.7 billion  2002
Italy $20.2 billion  2002
Saudi Arabia $18.3 billion  FY00 
Korea, South $16.18 billion  FY04 
Brazil $13.408 billion  FY99 
India $12,079.7 million  FY01 
Iran $9.7 billion  FY00 
Australia $9.3 billion  FY01/02 est. 
Israel $8.97 billion  FY02 
Spain $8.6 billion  2002
Taiwan $8,041.2 million  FY01 
Turkey $8.1 billion  2002 est. 
Canada $7,860.5 million  FY01/02 
Netherlands $6.5 billion  FY00/01 est. 
Greece $6.12 billion  FY99/00 est. 
Korea, North $5,124.1 million  FY01 
Singapore $4.47 billion  FY01/02 est. 
Sweden $4,395.1 million  FY01 
Argentina $4.3 billion  FY99 
Egypt $4.04 billion  FY99/00 
Mexico $4 billion  FY99 
Poland $3.5 billion  2002
Colombia $3.3 billion  FY01 
Norway $3.113 billion  FY98/99 
Belgium $3,076.5 million  FY01/02 
Switzerland $2.548 billion  FY01 
Pakistan $2,545.5 million  FY01 
Chile $2.5 billion  FY99 
Denmark $2.47 billion  FY99/00 
Oman $2,424.4 million  FY01 
Kuwait $1,967.3 million  FY01 [see Note 3] 
Algeria $1.87 billion  FY99 
Finland $1.8 billion  FY98/99 
South Africa $1.79 billion  FY01 
Thailand $1.775 billion  FY00 
Malaysia $1.69 billion  FY00 est. 
United Arab Emirates $1.6 billion  FY00 
Romania $1.5 billion  2005
Austria $1,497.1 million  FY01/02 
Morocco $1.4 billion  FY99/00 
Iraq $1.3 billion  FY00 
Libya $1.3 billion  FY99/00 
Portugal $1.286 billion  FY99/00 
Angola $1.2 billion  FY97 
Czech Republic $1,190.2 million  FY01 
Hungary $1.08 billion  2002 est. 
Indonesia $1 billion  FY98/99 
Peru $1 billion  FY01 
Philippines $995 million  FY98 
Venezuela $934 million  FY99 
Syria $921 million  FY00 est. [see Note 4] 
Ethiopia $800 million  FY00 
Jordan $757.5 million  FY01 
Qatar $723 million  FY00/01 
Ecuador $720 million  FY98 
Sri Lanka $719 million  FY98 
Ireland $700 million  FY00/01 
Serbia and Montenegro $654 million  2002
Vietnam $650 million  FY98 
Cuba $630 million  1999 [see Note 7]
Sudan $581 million  2001 est. 
Bangladesh $559 million  FY96/97 
Bahrain $526.2 million  FY01 
Croatia $520 million  2002 est. 
New Zealand $515.6 million  2002 est. 
Ukraine $500 million  FY99 
Yemen $482.5 million  FY01 
Slovakia $406 million  2002
Nigeria $374.9 million  FY01 
Cyprus $370 million  FY00 
Slovenia $370 million  FY00 
Bulgaria $356 million  FY02 
Tunisia $356 million  FY99 
Zimbabwe $350.6 million  FY01 
Brunei $343 million  FY98 
Lebanon $343 million  FY99/00 
Congo, Democratic Republic of the $250 million  FY97 
Uruguay $250 million  1999
Lithuania $230.8 million  FY01 
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of $200 million  FY01/02 est. 
Uzbekistan $200 million  FY97 
New Caledonia $192.3 million  FY96 
Dominican Republic $180 million  FY98 
Kenya $179.2 million  FY01 
Kazakhstan $173 million  FY01 [see Note 2] 
Belarus $156 million  FY98 
Estonia $155 million  2002 est. 
Luxembourg $147.8 million  FY01/02 
Bolivia $147 million  FY99 
Eritrea $138.3 million  FY01 
Guinea $137.6 million  FY01 
Armenia $135 million  FY01 
Botswana $135 million  FY01/02 
Panama $128 million  FY99 
Cote d'Ivoire $127.7 million  FY01 
Paraguay $125 million  FY98 
Uganda $121.3 million  FY01 
Azerbaijan $121 million  FY99 
Guatemala $120 million  FY99 
Cameroon $118.6 million  FY00/01 
Cambodia $112 million  FY01 est. 
El Salvador $112 million  FY99 
Namibia $104.4 million  2001
Trinidad and Tobago $90 million  1999
Turkmenistan $90 million  FY99 
Malawi $9.5 million  FY00/01 
Bhutan $9.3 million  FY01 
Cape Verde $9.3 million  FY01 
Mauritius $9.1 million  FY01 
Latvia $87 million  FY01 
Congo, Republic of the $84 million  FY01 
Gabon $70.8 million  FY01 
Costa Rica $69 million  FY99 
Senegal $68.6 million  FY02 
Malta $60 million  2000 est. 
Rwanda $58 million  FY01 
Albania $56.5 million  FY02 
Laos $55 million  FY98 
Nepal $51.5 million  FY01 
Haiti $50 million  FY00 
Mali $50 million  FY01 
Madagascar $48.7 million  FY01 
Papua New Guinea $42 million  FY98 
Burkina Faso $40.1 million  FY01 
Burma $39 million  FY97/98 
Mauritania $37.1 million  FY01 
Burundi $36.9 million  FY01 
Tajikistan $35.4 million  FY01 
Ghana $35.2 million  FY01 
Mozambique $35.1 million  2000 est. 
Fiji $35 million  FY00 
Honduras $35 million  FY99 
Maldives $34.5 million  FY01 
Lesotho $34 million  1999
Zambia $32.5 million  FY01 
Chad $31 million  FY01 
Jamaica $30 million  FY95/96 est. 
Central African Republic $29 million  FY96 
Equatorial Guinea $27.5 million  FY01 
Benin $27 million  FY96 
Djibouti $26.5 million  FY01 
Nicaragua $26 million  FY98 
Mongolia $24.3 million  FY01 
Georgia $23 million  FY00 
Togo $21.9 million  FY01 
Niger $20.9 million  FY01 
Bahamas, The $20 million  FY95/96 
Swaziland $20 million  FY01/02 
Kyrgyzstan $19.2 million  FY01 
Tanzania $19 million  FY01 
Somalia $15.3 million  FY01 
Seychelles $11 million  FY01 
Sierra Leone $10.3 million  FY01 
Liberia $7.8 million  FY01 
Belize $7.7 million  FY00/01 
Comoros $6 million  FY01 
Moldova $6 million  FY01 
Guinea-Bissau $5.6 million  FY01 
East Timor $4.4 million  FY03 
Bermuda $4,027,970  January 2002 
Gambia, The $1.2 million  FY01 
San Marino $700,000  FY00/01 
Sao Tome and Principe $400,000  FY01 
Iceland 0
Afghanistan $NA 
Antigua and Barbuda $NA 
Barbados $NA 
Bosnia and Herzegovina $NA 
Dominica $NA 
Falkland Islands [Islas Malvinas]  $NA 
Faroe Islands $NA 
French Guiana $NA 
Gaza Strip $NA 
Grenada $NA 
Guyana $NA 
Kiribati $NA 
Marshall Islands $NA 
Nauru $NA 
Palau $NA 
Saint Kitts and Nevis $NA 
Saint Lucia $NA 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines $NA 
Samoa $NA 
Solomon Islands $NA 
Suriname $NA 
Tonga $NA 
Tuvalu $NA 
Vanuatu $NA 
West Bank $NA 
Western Sahara $NA 
SOURCE [unless otherwise noted]:
Field Listing - Military expenditures CIA - The World Factbook 2002 -- The Military expenditures dollar figure entry gives current military expenditures in US dollars; the figure is calculated by multiplying the estimated defense spending in percentage terms by the gross domestic product (GDP) calculated on an exchange rate basis not purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. Dollar figures for military expenditures should be treated with caution because of different price patterns and accounting methods among nations, as well as wide variations in the strength of their currencies.
World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (WMEAT) The 28th edition of "World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers" (WMEAT), released on February 6, 2003, is the second published by the Department of State following integration with the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the previous publisher. The report covers the years 1989 through 1999 -- that is, the end of the Cold War and its aftermath.
SIPRI data on military expenditure

Note 1 - The officially announced figure is $24.6 billion, but actual defense spending more likely ranges from $45 billion to $85 billion for 2004 
Note 2 - Ministry of Defense expenditures 
Note 3 - Kuwait is changing its fiscal year; the above figure is for July-March 2001; future budget years will be April-March annually 
Note 4 - based on official budget data that may understate actual spending 
Note 5 - Non-US aggregate real expenditure on arms worldwide in 2004 remained at approximately the 1998 level, about half a trillion dollars. US spending increased from about $280 billion to about $470 billion. 
Note 6 - CIA & SIPRI provide no estimates
Note 7 - WMEAT 1999 estimate, CIA & SIPRI provide no estimates
Note 7 - The fiscal year (FY) 2004 Department of Defense (DoD) budget request was $379.9 billion in discretionary budget authority -- $15.3 billion above FY 2003. The fiscal 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, passed by Congress 07 November 2003, authorizes DoD to spend $401.3 billion. The fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, which actually provides the money, became law 30 September 2003.

On April 16, 2003 President Bush signed the FY2003 $79 billion wartime supplemental to cover the needs directly arising from Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reconstruction of Iraq. The Defense Department received $62.6 billion as a result of the emergency supplemental bill.

On Nov. 6, 2003 President Bush signed the FY2004 $87.5 billion supplemental appropriations bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill provides $64.7 billion for military operations in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, including about $51 billion is for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and $10 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom. The remaining $22.8 billion in non-DOD monies will cover costs with Operation Noble Eagle and support for allies in the war on terror. 



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to much (IMHO).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
I voted for 'Not enough.'
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
^^^
Agreed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
$466 Billion. :jawdrop: :) I don’t think that includes supplemental spending either.

Reading down under the Note section, it doesn’t look like it. Supplemental would actually push that figure past $600 Billion.

I haven't decided if I think we spend too much on National Defence. :no2: There is a lot to take into consideration. Such as: Afordability and current and future necessity.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I say too little. While we spend less that our other European partners we seem to get basically as much firepower. Perhaps this is due to advantages of a closer alliance with the US military. I think however we should spend more so that we are paying our fair share. I would suggest that we should aim to match the US in terms of % of GDP spent.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Mainiac
Lieutenant Commander
Verrry interesting. I just got around to voting myself (too much). I'm not sure whether the figures for the US include the supplementals or not myself - the notes aren't clear to me. Also, much of the US nuclear weapon budget is hidden in other departments and I think Veteran's Administration funding should be included but isn't, so the "real" number is yet higher. I think my biggest problem is the waste, corruption, and profiteering. Personnel costs are generally only about a quarter of the budget. Also, the choices of what we spend it on. Why are we still building more nuclear subs at a billion and a half each? You could hire and train 100's of Farsi translators for the cost of a single M-1 Abrams tank. Which do we need more?
:shrug:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
As with almost every area of government, I also don't like the waste. But not having a super strong military and having a bunch of entitlements in their place amounts to buying a gorgeous home, furnishing it beautifully, landscaping it to the point of perfection, and never locking your door when you go out or go to bed at night. I think that we should be spending even more on the military and while keeping it volunteer, giving entitlements and privileges beyond the basics to those that serve.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Mainiac
Lieutenant Commander
psyfi Posted on Aug 8 2005
06:06 PM
As with almost every area of government, I also don't like the waste. But not having a super strong military and having a bunch of entitlements in their place amounts to buying a gorgeous home, furnishing it beautifully, landscaping it to the point of perfection, and never locking your door when you go out or go to bed at night. I think that we should be spending even more on the military and while keeping it volunteer, giving entitlements and privileges beyond the basics to those that serve.


Here's another analogy. Would you want to live in a luxurious gated community...in downtown Camden, NJ?...East St. Louis?...Watts?

If, by advocating increased spending for the military, you mean the troops, Psyfi, then I am 100% with you. I saw a story recently about service members forced to commute 300 miles daily, due to lack of affordable housing at their place of assignment (SoCal). We can do better than that! :realmad:

You are correct that "entitlement" programs outweigh defence spending as a proportion of the Federal budget, as they have since at least the '30's, with the exception of WWII. I swill at that side of the government trough, indirectly, and many of us here at Sistertrek have lined up at one side or the other, (or both :D) at some point in their lives. Anyways, it's another topic for another day.

If you think we should be throwing more money at defence contractors, however, then you are really just advocating corporate welfare over individual welfare. Sure, the US is dominant militarily in the world tody, it's forces unbeatable in open combat, but when you look at the return on our investment and compare it to what the rest of the world spends, and then figure the cost per citizen, or per square mile..., well, I'm not that impressed. And when you consider that we currently have had peaceful borders for (Pancho Villa excepted) over 150 years, compared to the rest of the world, well...(Hell, we can't even secure our own borders, while we demand other nations close theirs! :realmad: :offtopic: :blush: )

One thing we need to do is cut the umbilical cord to the corporations. You really want to be fiscally conservative? Stop funding the R & D. Instead of supporting a bloated DoD beaurocracy, which generates detailed weapons specifications and capabilities guaranteed to limit competition to one or two competitors, let the Navy simply say, "We need to field 30 new vessels, 100 crew each, capable of littoral operations, by 2030." Let's let venture capitalism actually work, and investors actually take risks! What a concept! Better yet, it might actually let entrepreneurs back into the game. Nobody paid Hiram Maxim to develop the machine gun. Heck, we didn't even want it. He sold it to the French. The French!!! Also, we might give industry a reason to hire our service members for their experience and ideas, instead of their connections. No more funding from blank sheet of paper. The market will provide.

(I hope I haven't come across too "ranty"! Just throwin' around some dumb ideas. :lol: )
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Too much.

Guess who is the beneficiary of a lot of that spending is - you got it - the USA.

The same applies (I dare say) to most other nations on the planet , a very good reason for the USA to keep everyone edgey and insecure , it's good for the USA's arms industies and hence good for the USA's economy (even if it means that money that could be used to improve public health, education and infrastructure is diverted to unnecessary arms purchases).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Timbo
Lieutenant Commander
We spend 9.3 Billion a year!?

On what!

I have 2 mates who just graduated from RMC in Canberra (that's officer school over here) and they're always bitching about how they're equipment is obsolete or they have US or UK surplus which they stopped using decades ago.

Way too much!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Aug 8 2005, 09:13 PM
Too much.

Guess who is the beneficiary of a lot of that spending is - you got it - the USA.

The same applies (I dare say) to most other nations on the planet , a very good reason for the USA to keep everyone edgey and insecure , it's good for the USA's arms industies and hence good for the USA's economy (even if it means that money that could be used to improve public health, education and infrastructure is diverted to unnecessary arms purchases).

Fine, design your own planes, guns, and other weapons...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I'm curious as to how much of a percentage of GDP each government spends. Our number, large as it seems on paper, is a tiny percentage of our Gross Domestic Product.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
I voted "enough" - any more money they need they can get from better managing their money.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
somerled
Aug 8 2005, 11:13 PM
Too much.

Guess who is the beneficiary of a lot of that spending is - you got it - the USA.

The same applies (I dare say) to most other nations on the planet , a very good reason for the USA to keep everyone edgey and insecure , it's good for the USA's arms industies and hence good for the USA's economy (even if it means that money that could be used to improve public health, education and infrastructure is diverted to unnecessary arms purchases).

Somerled - is every problem in the world Americas fault?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus