Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
This web page has the following sub-sections:
(1991 figures are unavailable.)
Summarizing some key details from chapter 5 of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)’s 2009 Year Book on Armaments, Disarmament and International Security for 2008:
SIPRI has commented in the past on the increasing concentration of military expenditure, i.e. that a small number of countries spend the largest sums. This trend carries on into 2008 spending. For example,
Military spending is concentrated in North America, Europe, and increasingly, Asia:
SIPRI also adds that recently more countries have increased their military spending. Factors include
The last point refers to rapidly developing nations like China and India that have seen their economies boom in recent years. In addition, high and rising world market prices for minerals and fossil fuels (at least until recently) have also enabled some nations to spend more on their militaries.
The latest figures SIPRI uses are from 2008, and where necessary (e.g. China and Russia), include estimates. These figures also do not reflect the full effect of the global financial crisis, the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s, which future figures will likely reflect.
The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $27 billion each year, or about $4 for each of the world’s inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is just a tiny fraction of the world’s military spending. Yet for nearly two decades, the UN has faced a financial difficulties and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN’s voluntary funds. As of May 31, 2009, members’ arrears to the Regular Budget topped $1282 million, of which the United States alone owed $857 million (67% of the regular budget arrears).
— UN Financial Crisis, Global Policy Forum (accessed September 13, 2009)
At a time when a deep economic recession is causing much turbulence in the civilian world … defense giants such as Boeing and EADS, or Finmeccanica and Northrop Grumman, are enjoying a reliable and growing revenue stream from countries eager to increase their military might.
Both geopolitical hostilities and domestic violence tend to flare up during downturns.
…
Shareholders and employees in the aerospace and defense industry are clearly the ones who benefit most from growing defense spending.
Defense companies, whose main task is to aid governments’ efforts to defend or acquire territory, routinely highlight their capacity to contribute to economic growth and to provide employment.
Indeed, some $2.4 trillion (£1.5tr), or 4.4%, of the global economy “is dependent on violence”, according to the Global Peace Index, referring to “industries that create or manage violence” — or the defense industry.
…
Military might delivers geopolitical supremacy, but peace delivers economic prosperity and stability.
And that, the report insists, is what is good for business.
— Jorn Madslien, The purchasing power of peace, BBC, June 3, 2009
The Global Peace Index that the BBC is referring to is an attempt to quantify the difficult-to-define value of peace and rank countries based on over 20 indicators using both quantitative data and qualitative scores from a range of sources. Here is a summary chart from their latest report:
(The top ranking nations on the global peace index were, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Sweden, Japan, Canada, Finland, and Slovenia. It is worth looking at the report for the full list of indicators used, which cover a mixture of internal and external factors, weighted in various ways.)
These issues have been of concern for a number of years. For example, consider this from 1998:
The illegal international drugs trade is estimated to be worth more than $400 billion, coming second only to military expenditure.
And consider the following, reflecting world priorities:
Global Priority | $U.S. Billions |
---|---|
Cosmetics in the United States | 8 |
Ice cream in Europe | 11 |
Perfumes in Europe and the United States | 12 |
Pet foods in Europe and the United States | 17 |
Business entertainment in Japan | 35 |
Cigarettes in Europe | 50 |
Alcoholic drinks in Europe | 105 |
Narcotics drugs in the world | 400 |
Military spending in the world | 780 |
And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve universal access to basic social services in all developing countries:
Global Priority | $U.S. Billions |
---|---|
Basic education for all | 6 |
Water and sanitation for all | 9 |
Reproductive health for all women | 12 |
Basic health and nutrition | 13 |
(Source: The state of human development, United Nations Human Development Report 1998, Chapter 1, p.37)
It would seem ironic that the world spends more on things to destroy each other (military) and to destroy ourselves (drugs, alcohol and cigarettes) than on anything else.
These statistics are quickly getting old. If someone has had the time to research updated statistics, please let me know!
The United States has unquestionably been the most formidable military power in recent years. Its spending levels, as noted earlier, is the principle determinant of world military spending and is therefore worth looking at further.
Year | National defense budget ($bn) | War Supplemental ($bn) | Total military spending ($bn) |
---|---|---|---|
2010 | 534 | 130 | 664 |
2009 | 536 | 144 | 680 |
2008 | 516 | 194 | 710 |
2007 | 471 | 134 | 660 |
2006 | 471 | 134 | 605 |
2005 | 451 | 114 | 565 |
2004 | 489 | 81 | 570 |
2003 | 472 | 75 | 547 |
2002 | 428 | 20 | 448 |
2001 | 401 | 25 | 426 |
2000 | 387 | 0 | 387 |
The decline seen in recent years above are due to a number of factors:
Nonetheless, compared to the rest of the world, these numbers have long been described as “staggering.”
In other words,
Military spending in 2008 ($ Billions, and percent of total)
Country
Dollars (billions)
% of total
Rank
Source: U.S. Military Spending vs. the World, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February 22, 2008
Notes:
If you are viewing this table on another site, please see http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending for further details.
United States
711
48.28%
1
China
121.9
8.28%
2
Russia
70
4.75%
3
United Kingdom
55.4
3.76%
4
France
54
3.67%
5
Japan
41.1
2.79%
6
Germany
37.8
2.57%
7
Italy
30.6
2.08%
8
Saudi Arabia
29.5
2.00%
9
South Korea
24.6
1.67%
10
India
22.4
1.52%
11
Australia
17.2
1.17%
12
Brazil
16.2
1.10%
13
Canada
15
1.02%
14
Spain
14.4
0.98%
15
Turkey
11.6
0.79%
16
Israel
11
0.75%
17
Netherlands
9.9
0.67%
18
United Arab Emirates
9.5
0.65%
19
Taiwan
7.7
0.52%
20
Greece
7.3
0.50%
21
Iran
7.2
0.49%
22
Myanmar
6.9
0.47%
23
Singapore
6.3
0.43%
24
Poland
6.2
0.42%
25
Sweden
5.8
0.39%
26
Colombia
5.4
0.37%
27
Chile
4.7
0.32%
28
Belgium
4.4
0.30%
29
Egypt
4.3
0.29%
30
Pakistan
4.2
0.29%
31
Denmark
3.9
0.26%
32
Indonesia
3.6
0.24%
33
Switzerland
3.5
0.24%
34
Kuwait
3.5
0.24%
35
South Africa
3.5
0.24%
36
Oman
3.3
0.22%
37
Malaysia
3.2
0.22%
38
Mexico
3.2
0.22%
39
Portugal
3.1
0.21%
40
Algeria
3.1
0.21%
41
Finland
2.8
0.19%
42
Austria
2.6
0.18%
43
Venezuela
2.6
0.18%
44
Czech Republic
2.5
0.17%
45
Romania
2.3
0.16%
46
Qatar
2.3
0.16%
47
Thailand
2.3
0.16%
48
Morocco
2.2
0.15%
49
Argentina
1.9
0.13%
50
Ukraine
1.7
0.12%
51
Cuba
1.7
0.12%
52
Angola
1.6
0.11%
53
New Zealand
1.5
0.10%
54
Hungary
1.3
0.09%
55
Ireland
1.1
0.07%
56
Jordan
1.1
0.07%
57
Peru
1.1
0.07%
58
North Korea
n/a
n/a
59
Global Total (not all countries shown): 1,472.7
100%
n/aWhy does the US number seem so high when the budget announced $517.9 for the Department of Defense?
Unfortunately, the budget numbers can be a bit confusing. For example, the Fiscal Year budget requests for US military spending do not include combat figures (which are supplemental requests that Congress approves separately). The budget for nuclear weapons falls under the Department of Energy, and for the 2009 request, was about $29 billion.
The cost of war (Iraq and Afghanistan) is estimated to be about $170 billion for the 2009 spending alone. Christopher Hellman and Travis Sharp also discuss the US fiscal year 2009 Pentagon spending request and note that “Congress has already approved nearly $700 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $126 billion in FY’08 war funding is still pending before the House and Senate.”
Furthermore, other costs such as care for veterans, health care, military training/aid, secret operations, may fall under other departments or be counted separately.
The frustration of confusing numbers seemed to hit a raw nerve for the Center for Defense Information, concluding
The articles that newspapers all over the country publish today will be filled with [military spending] numbers to the first decimal point; they will seem precise. Few of them will be accurate; many will be incomplete, some will be both. Worse, few of us will be able to tell what numbers are too high, which are too low, and which are so riddled with gimmicks to make them lose real meaning.
— Winslow T. Wheeler, What Do the Pentagon’s Numbers Really Mean? The Chaos in America’s Vast Security Budget, Center for Defense Information, February 4, 2008
Linking military spending to the GDP is an argument frequently made by supporters of higher military budgets. Comparing military spending (or any other spending for that matter) to the GDP tells you how large a burden such spending puts on the US economy, but it tells you nothing about the burden a $440 billion military budget puts on U.S. taxpayers. Our economy may be able to bear higher military spending, but the question today is whether current military spending levels are necessary and whether these funds are going towards the proper priorities. Further, such comparisons are only made when the economy is healthy. It is unlikely that those arguing that military spending should be a certain portion of GDP would continue to make this case if the economy suddenly weakened, thus requiring dramatic cuts in the military.
— Chris Hellman, The Runaway Military Budget: An Analysis , Friends Committee on National Legislation, March 2006, no. 705, p. 3
Sharp also adds that when the war supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan are considered, the US budget is already over the 4% mark. The other concerns is that tying it to GDP eases the debate that would otherwise occur on the issue:
GDP is an important metric for determining how much the United States could afford to spend on defense, but it provides no insight into how much the United States should spend. Defense planning is a matter of matching limited resources to achieve carefully scrutinized and prioritized objectives. When there are more threats, a nation spends more. When there are fewer threats, it spends less. As threats evolve, funding should evolve along with them.…
Unfortunately, setting defense spending at four percent of GDP would shield the Pentagon from careful scrutiny and curtail a much-needed transparent national debate.
— Travis Sharp, Debate: Four Percent of Gross Domestic Product for Defense?, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February 26, 2009 (Emphasis added)
(See also the Tying U.S. Defense Spending to GDP: Bad Logic, Bad Policy, (April 15, 2008) from Travis Sharp for additional details.)
With the change in presidency from George Bush to Barack Obama, the US has signaled a desire to reform future spending and already indicated significant changes for the FY 2010 defense budget. For example, the US has indicated that it will cut some high-tech weapons that are deemed as unnecessary or wasteful, and spend more on troops and reform contracting practices and improve support for personnel, families and veterans.
There is predictable opposition from some quarters arguing it will threaten jobs and weaken national security, even though spending has been far more than necessary for over a decade. The Friends Committee on National Legislation argues that the job loss argument is weak: “It is true that discontinuing weapons systems will cause job loss in the short term, but unnecessary weapons manufacturing should not be considered a jobs program (that would be like spending billions of dollars digging holes), and research shows that these jobs can be successfully transferred to other sectors.” In other words, this is unnecessary and wasted labor (as well as wasted capital and wasted resources).
Past empires have throughout history have justified their position as being good for the world. The US is no exception.
However, whether this global hegemony and stability actually means positive stability, peace and prosperity for the entire world (or most of it) is subjective. That is, certainly the hegemony at the time, and its allies would benefit from the stability, relative peace and prosperity for themselves, but often ignored in this is whether the policies pursued for their advantages breeds contempt elsewhere.
2009 (in billions of dollars)
2009 percent of federal funds budget
Source: Budget Chart: President Bush’s FY 09 Budget Proposal, Friends Committee on National Legislation, February 15, 2008
Current Military Spending
742
30.9%
Cost of Past Wars
324
13.5%
Total military percent
44.4%
Health care
472
19.7%
Responses to Poverty
284
11.8%
Interest on Non-Military Share of Federal Debt
261
10.9%
Government Operations
166
7%
Education and jobs
52
2.2%
Science, Energy, & Environment
60
2.5%
Non-Military International Programs
37
1.5%
”
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
© 2009, ↑ Hiram's 1555 Blog
Log in- Posts - Add New - Powered by WordPress - Designed by Gabfire Themes
Ariel Nolasco
September 9, 2012 at 7:56 am
Thank you for posting this thought-provoking blog. As we all know, most people have strongly held opinions, however, I have always maintained an open mind. Events each week require that we remain open to the “new.” When I have the time, I wish to return to read more of your contributions. How often do you write your posts so I can return to your site? I do think that we might share many of the same viewpoints.