Rising military budgets

[UtwigMU]

I'm noticing that all the countries in the world are arming and raising military budgets:

- USA 3% increase from 2009 in 2010. Despite the old cold war stuff now in active use being 30 years old and few new conventional systems being online much of this probably goes into classified stuff which is probably ~20 years ahead of what is publicly known (remember F-117 Stealth, B2, U2...)
- Russia has recovered economically, recently resumed patrols of Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers, sent Tu-160s on a visit to Venezuela. Just yesterday Medvedyev announced additional military spending and modernization of weapons. They have also resumed development of new tanks, new MIRVs, construction of submarines
- China has few years ago demonstrated ability to shoot down satellites, has bought the scrapped Russian aircraft carrier (unfinished sister ship of Admiral Kuznetsov carrier from Ukraine and is building several aircraft carriers. They are also developing other stuff and are arming themselves
- India is buying hardware from Russia and is also modernizing weapons
- Japan is growing less enthused of US military presence (trouble with relocation of base on Okinawa, paid US to relocated marines to Guam), despite having only "self defence force" they are 7th in military spending and their navy is not bad. Also recently they planned for creation of intelligence agency. Also Japan can produce nuclear weapons very quickly if they desire. They also have own space program (satellites, orbital weapons possible)

Still USA spends about as much on military as the rest of the World.

Around 1950 when USA was at about peak it amounted for 27% of World's GDP, now this is only 19% (China is 13,5%). If current trends continue, China will eclipse USA as country with highest GDP by 2018.

So countries are all modernizing arms, increasing spending (compare to battleship tonnage race around WW1) and we're coming to a World resembling state similar to before WW1 where there were several more equally matched superpowers (England, Germany, USA, Russia, Austro-Hungary, Japan). This state is much more dangerous for a big conflict to occur.

[Dr Mordrid]

Arms sales make up a sizable portion of exports for many nations of all persuasions, and even in rough economic tines there are always nations who are cash flush and willing customers. Some are new purchases and others are replacing outdated gear that parts are not available for or too expensive, With neighbors like Iran, Libya, Venezuela etc, who can blame them?

As for US DoD spending, new hardware procurements are going to go down, bases are being closed and there are the fixed costs of repair/maintenance and a huge chunk that goes into retirements, disability, family benefits and a nationwide chain of Veterans Administrations hospitals. All of those come off the top. Tack on inflation, especially for food and fuel which are skyrocketing in the US, and if even if the nominal budget goes up a few percent it's actually a reduction,

[GT98]

So countries are all modernizing arms, increasing spending (compare to battleship tonnage race around WW1) and we're coming to a World resembling state similar to before WW1 where there were several more equally matched superpowers (England, Germany, USA, Russia, Austro-Hungary, Japan). This state is much more dangerous for a big conflict to occur.

But the world is far more interconnected economically then it was prior to the start of last century too. That serves as a buffer also.

[Umfriend]

The question then is why, given that we have this buffer now, we need increased military spending.

[dZeus]

The question then is why, given that we have this buffer now, we need increased military spending.

to prevent Pax Americana from falling apart. The economical costs of that happening are probably greater than the increase in spending required to try and prevent it (or at least, for a short while; whether its trajectory can be changed in the long term is debatable).

[Dr Mordrid]

The question then is why, given that we have this buffer now, we need increased military spending.

For the US -

Inflation of material, fuel, food, uniforms etc. (no different than the >consumer costs for these items); the expanding US Coast Guard, including its rescue ops; replacement of outdated or ancient systems (B-52 will be 66 yrs old when Next-Generation Bomber is due in 2018, and >80 years old before it's out of service); baby-boomer retirements; Veterans Administration health cost & other increases; replacing expensive munitions & gear ($1B in Libya alone in <2 weeks); base closings (costs $$$$ to close one - savings are way downstream); R&D and other costs, not only for military but civilian projects like those done by the Army Corps of Engineers; medical research like the DARPA bionic arm (in accelerated trials), retinal regeneration (going into trials), bionic eye, limb regeneration (level 3 research), traumatic brain injury prevention and management, advanced medical sensors, high-end human hibernation for med-evac, advanced healing technologies (ex: soft tissue 'welding'), etc. etc.

ALL of this comes out of the DoD budget, and then some.

[Evildead666]

They're preparing for 2012.

*gets coat*

[Brian Ellis]

And it's all wasted money! It would benefit the countries much more if they spent it instead on education, health and welfare, as well as the elimination of poverty. Charity begins at home, rather than spending an estimated £350,000,000 per day (BBC figure) on the pretext of keeping Gaddafi's aircraft nailed to the ground. You could teach a lot of illiterate kids how to read and write for that, as well as providing rapid healthcare instead of 6-12 month waiting lists. The result would be prosperous nations with much better economies and, in time, leaders who are better equipped to face the problems of real life, not the problems of countries with tyrannical dictators with cultures we have no understanding of, which speak a different metaphorical and literate language, that present no threat to us, thousands of km away.

It would make more sense even if those £350M/day were spent alleviating the misery of the victims of the Tohoku tsunami.

[TransformX]

that present no threat to us, thousands of km away.

I'd argue that point. By the same account, the U.S.S.R presented no threat to the U.S during the cold war either.

[Umfriend]

Which would be a position I'd be willing to argue (as opposed to USSR not being a threat to US interests). In any case, I'm unconvinced that a comparison between 1945-1990 USSR and Libya today is relevant to any analysis and discredits BEs position.

[KRSESQ]

Military spending is a good make-work program for any nation seeking to shore up its manufacturing base and employment numbers. The defense industry has a huge infrastructure with VERY entrenched interests, and a considerable stock value to maintain. And there's ALWAYS some conflict going on SOMEWHERE to justify the spending. Throw in some petroleum politics and a growing twitter-fuelled freedom movement in lands that have arguably never had freedom before and you've got a party!

[TransformX]

Which would be a position I'd be willing to argue (as opposed to USSR not being a threat to US interests). In any case, I'm unconvinced that a comparison between 1945-1990 USSR and Libya today is relevant to any analysis and discredits BEs position.

Why and how only Libya? What bout Egypt, Yemen, KSA, Iran etc. etc. etc.? The whole ME, Persian gulf and North Africa are practically burning.

[Brian Ellis]

OK, let's have a look at this country. 35% of the island has been occupied under military force, by Turkey, since 1974. We still have a line of demarcation and Turkey still drools over the notion of taking over by force the other, richer, more economically stable, 65%, but it dare not. This means that the free 800,000 persons have to pay for a conscripted army (which would be useless, if push came to shove). Yesterday, the papers announced that one of the major parties (2nd biggest, I think), proposed phasing down this expensive army. See http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/di...draft/20110329 - I'm quite sure that if it came about, this reasonably prosperous nation would become very prosperous. It won't happen, though, because there are too many belligerents amongst the population on both the left and right of the political spectrum.

[Dr Mordrid]

TX- easy to explain

Obama was dragged into this by a group becoming known in media of all persuasions, including the Washington Post, as The Valkyries;

National Security Advisor Samantha Power
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
UN Ambassador Dusan Rice

(Valkyries were Norse female warrior-angels who decide who dies in battle)

Most of Obama's male advisors wanted nothing to do with Libya, and neither did the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military commanders. The ladies, however, got their way - especially Samantha Power who actively pushed the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine.

Power got R2P from The International Coalition For The Responsibility To Protect. This group was founded, and is funded, by her political mentor and notorious international financier George Soros.

Mr. Soros is a hedge fund honcho who has been pressuring Libya for years to do things with its oil, which is largely sold to Europe and China, and other resources in a manner to his liking/benefit. He's also been wanted in a few nations for currency manipulations etc, including France where he was convicted of insider trading but skipped town.

Mr. Soros is also a huge Dem donor, and founder/funder of several of their biggest lobbying and social media groups, so when he calls the White House, it gets answered.

Now....this doesn't mean KDaffy Duck doesn't deserve a Tomahawk up his rectum, he does, but the time for that was when the rebels were knocking on Tropoli's door not after they'd been driven to the Egyptian border.

Then there are the news items that among the rebels are AQ elements, many who fought us in Iraq including one of their commanders who we let out of Gitmo. We have no idea how close to the rebel center of gravity they are, yet there are administration members talking openly about arming them. Heavily.

SURE....let's just go ahead and give 'em Stinger missiles, then wait for some airliners in Europe to get shot out of the sky

Amateur Night in DC.

[Brian Ellis]

And there's ALWAYS some conflict going on SOMEWHERE to justify the spending.

Where is SOMEWHERE that can JUSTIFY the spending. It is not possible to justify interference in a sovereign state's internal affairs, however they are conducted. Let them get on with it, their comeuppance will arrive from within in due course. It is this interference that CREATES conflict and this is worse because it is so selective (economic much more than humanitarian).

Just think how much is being spent, world wide, on defence and offence: ~$1.6 TRILLION EACH YEAR, 47% of which by one country with ~5% of the world's population, representing ~5% of that country's GDP. That same country is today's most belligerent and bellicose one, sticking its nose nearly everywhere, not just somewhere. Yet 15% of the population of that country is living in poverty and 14% are functionally illiterate. It also has the highest total documented prison and jail population in the world. Could not some of that $700 billion be spent on helping their own people rather than interfering in the sovereign affairs of other countries??? The sense of proportion has flown out the window.

Because I cite one country, I do not do so as a unique case, although it it the most blatant. There are many other countries with an undue record of bellicosity and internal problems with its own population.