• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Defense Spending Ranking

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
the only thing that counts is % of GDP, not absolute dollars. That figure should be around 2% for a normal army.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
the only thing that counts is % of GDP, not absolute dollars. That figure should be around 2% for a normal army.
Where did you come up with that number?

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
the only thing that counts is % of GDP, not absolute dollars. That figure should be around 2% for a normal army.
And most countries spend to little on their defense.
 

ub4me

Senior member
Sep 18, 2000
460
0
0
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
the only thing that counts is % of GDP, not absolute dollars. That figure should be around 2% for a normal army.
world average = 2%
ours = at least 3.5%


The United States now spends at least 3 times as much on defense as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Cuba, Libya, and Sudan combined.
linky

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Wouldn't you want to try to atleast spend more? Right now our army is 30 years ahead of many contries in military technology and equipment. I think we should keep it that way.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
the only thing that counts is % of GDP, not absolute dollars. That figure should be around 2% for a normal army.
Where did you come up with that number?
From what I've read, 2-2.5% seems to be the average. Canada spends about 1.3% or so, hence why our military is so underfunded right now.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
the only thing that counts is % of GDP, not absolute dollars. That figure should be around 2% for a normal army.
Where did you come up with that number?
From what I've read, 2-2.5% seems to be the average. Canada spends about 1.3% or so, hence why our military is so underfunded right now.
I would say 2% is the bare minimum to have a decent military. This depends on many things however(gdp size,landmass size, population....).
 

Morph

Banned
Oct 14, 1999
747
0
0
Of course we spend too much on defense. With half of that money we could feed all the starving people in the world. Cure some diseases too, while we're at it. What is the big threat that we're defending against, anyways?

Imagine if all countries of the world got together and said, 'ok, let's agree to work all our problems out with diplomatic means and not have any more wars, and just spend all this defense money on improving the lives of people'. Everyone would agree that all conflicts would have to be worked out peacefully by arbitration of an international committee, like the United Nations. Ok, it's a pipe dream, but it's a nice one. Of course then you'd have one country blow everything by ignoring the rules of the UN and going and starting a war. Ring a bell, anyone?
 

CubicZirconia

Diamond Member
Nov 24, 2001
5,193
0
71
Of course then you'd have one country blow everything by ignoring the rules of the UN and going and starting a war. Ring a bell, anyone?
If you are implying that the United States single-handedly creates all conflicts and wars in the world, you are crazy.

What is the big threat that we're defending against, anyways?
We are trying to defend our freedom and way of life.
 

Originally posted by: Morph
Of course we spend too much on defense. With half of that money we could feed all the starving people in the world. Cure some diseases too, while we're at it. What is the big threat that we're defending against, anyways?

Imagine if all countries of the world got together and said, 'ok, let's agree to work all our problems out with diplomatic means and not have any more wars, and just spend all this defense money on improving the lives of people'. Everyone would agree that all conflicts would have to be worked out peacefully by arbitration of an international committee, like the United Nations. Ok, it's a pipe dream, but it's a nice one. Of course then you'd have one country blow everything by ignoring the rules of the UN and going and starting a war. Ring a bell, anyone?
deter verb [T] -rr-
to prevent or discourage someone from doing something by making it difficult for them to do it or by threatening bad results if they do it:
These measures are designed to deter an enemy attack.

deterrent noun [C]
something which deters people from doing something:
a nuclear deterrent

deterrent adjective
a deterrent effect
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,298
1,993
126
It's not what you spend, it's return on investment. Spending 100 billion on a bunch of conscripts waving AK-47's is a far cry from spending 100 billion on a carrier battle group that can project power anywhere in the world. Looking at that chart, the countries that should question their defense budgets are Russia, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and France. They're getting little return on investment and none of them have a military that can handle anything beyond a border skirmish. Hell, what does France even spend the money on, white flags and double escargot rations for any soldier who can say "Welcome to Paris, have a nice day" in fluent German? The countries on that chart that seem to be spending wisely are us, the UK and Israel. We have modern forces capable of standing up to anyone in the world, the rest just have glorified militia and a few nukes.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
It's not what you spend, it's return on investment. Spending 100 billion on a bunch of conscripts waving AK-47's is a far cry from spending 100 billion on a carrier battle group that can project power anywhere in the world. Looking at that chart, the countries that should question their defense budgets are Russia, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and France. They're getting little return on investment and none of them have a military that can handle anything beyond a border skirmish. Hell, what does France even spend the money on, white flags and double escargot rations for any soldier who can say "Welcome to Paris, have a nice day" in fluent German? The countries on that chart that seem to be spending wisely are us, the UK and Israel. We have modern forces capable of standing up to anyone in the world, the rest just have glorified militia and a few nukes.
That's all it takes. You have nukes and missiles, you are set. Look at the difference between Iraq and NK.
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Originally posted by: Morph
Of course we spend too much on defense. With half of that money we could feed all the starving people in the world. Cure some diseases too, while we're at it. What is the big threat that we're defending against, anyways?

Nice idea but most of the "starvation" in the world results from civil wars or repressive governments that have diverted resources to building up military forces or to the ruling parties. Recent experience is that if you want to feed the starving people you have to intervene in the military conflicts or you have to give it to the corrupt governments who tend to divert it to boost their strength. Singing "Imagine" from the Ivory Tower makes everyone feel great but in the real world things are a whole lot more complicated.


 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak Canada spends about 1.3% or so, hence why our military is so underfunded right now.


And from what I've heard, all that goes towards the maintenance of that one tank. :D
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
It's funny how some of you people argue against spending in the one category that the Constitution squarely puts on our Federal Government. If you ever read it, you will find it says nothing about afterschool programs, school lunches, schools, endangered species (actualy the right to property should be the sayso on this issue, unfortunately it is not), and highways. But how much money does the Federal Government waste on all of these state issues?
 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
Originally posted by: Morph
Of course we spend too much on defense. With half of that money we could feed all the starving people in the world. Cure some diseases too, while we're at it. What is the big threat that we're defending against, anyways?

Imagine if all countries of the world got together and said, 'ok, let's agree to work all our problems out with diplomatic means and not have any more wars, and just spend all this defense money on improving the lives of people'. Everyone would agree that all conflicts would have to be worked out peacefully by arbitration of an international committee, like the United Nations. Ok, it's a pipe dream, but it's a nice one. Of course then you'd have one country blow everything by ignoring the rules of the UN and going and starting a war. Ring a bell, anyone?

Are we on the same planet? You don't get out much, do you? Speaking as someone who has travelled all over the world, the money for our military is well spent. There are way too many crazy ass bastards out there that relish power and destruction and would put a bullet in your head just for looking at them the wrong way. All I have to say, is thank goodness we have the most powerful military in the world. I think most of you guys are way too comfortable in your little suburbia to appreciate the freedoms that a strong military has afforded us.
 

steell

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2001
1,569
0
76
Originally posted by: Jmman
Originally posted by: Morph
Of course we spend too much on defense. With half of that money we could feed all the starving people in the world. Cure some diseases too, while we're at it. What is the big threat that we're defending against, anyways?

Imagine if all countries of the world got together and said, 'ok, let's agree to work all our problems out with diplomatic means and not have any more wars, and just spend all this defense money on improving the lives of people'. Everyone would agree that all conflicts would have to be worked out peacefully by arbitration of an international committee, like the United Nations. Ok, it's a pipe dream, but it's a nice one. Of course then you'd have one country blow everything by ignoring the rules of the UN and going and starting a war. Ring a bell, anyone?

Are we on the same planet? You don't get out much, do you? Speaking as someone who has travelled all over the world, the money for our military is well spent. There are way too many crazy ass bastards out there that relish power and destruction and would put a bullet in your head just for looking at them the wrong way. All I have to say, is thank goodness we have the most powerful military in the world. I think most of you guys are way too comfortable in your little suburbia to appreciate the freedoms that a strong military has afforded us.
Well stated :)
There has not been a single day in recorded history, in which there was not fighting going on somewhere.
People have a tendency to assume that other peoples have the same cultural values. After traveling the world for 20+ years, I can assure you that is not true.


 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: Morph
Of course we spend too much on defense. With half of that money we could feed all the starving people in the world. Cure some diseases too, while we're at it. What is the big threat that we're defending against, anyways?

Typical bleeding heart liberal nonsense.
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool


That's all it takes. You have nukes and missiles, you are set. Look at the difference between Iraq and NK.

That's not all it takes. Nuclear weapons are not likely to be used to protect a country. If someone is invading your land, what are you going to do, nuke yourself to kill the enemies on your land? Nuke their land and let them keep taking your land? Conventional forces are far more useful.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Originally posted by: CPA
It's funny how some of you people argue against spending in the one category that the Constitution squarely puts on our Federal Government. If you ever read it, you will find it says nothing about afterschool programs, school lunches, schools, endangered species (actualy the right to property should be the sayso on this issue, unfortunately it is not), and highways. But how much money does the Federal Government waste on all of these state issues?
CPA didn't you get the memo? The constitution is dying a slow death. Government is the answer to all problems and should be looked to first for solutions. Anything can and should be socialized if it feels right.

As for defense spending, I really wish Europe would provide for its own security. I'm not sure why we continue to defend it against the Red Commies.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
yeah we need that strong military to defend our borders from canada and mexico. bastahds!
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
for those saying you can feed the world with our military bux, you don't understand what the military industrial complex is and how it relates to our domestic economy. its circular in which the more money spent will actually increase our GDP due to a keynesian multiplier effect
 

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
for those saying you can feed the world with our military bux, you don't understand
but more people in other countries buying our stuff would help too ;) so which is better?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY