Didn't pull up the article I originally cited, and these are simply the first responses that came off the search engine. Close enough, though. There are some variances in the figures, particularly concerning China, but that's to be expected: nobody takes the official Chinese figure at face value, and the figure you use depends on what analyst you consider authoritative.
govspot.com
In millions of dollars
1. United States 277,800
2. Russia 76,000
3. China–Mainland 63,510
4. Japan 50,240
5. France 47,770
6. Germany 41,160
7. United Kingdom 33,400
8. Italy 19,380
9. Saudi Arabia 17,210
10. Korea, South 14,410
11. China–Taiwan 13,140
12. Brazil 10,900
13. Canada 9,070
14. Israel 8,734
15. Spain 8,652
Source: U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, 1995.
This is a little old, and there are certainly changes: the US is up to $288B; the Russians have probably dropped a bit.
clw.org
U.S. SPENDING AT 86% OF COLD WAR LEVEL: The $280 billion which the US spends per year on the military accounts for a little over half of the discretionary spending (funding over which the President and Congress have direct control) in the annual federal budget. From 1950 until 1989, during the Cold
War, the United States spent an average of $325 billion (current year dollars) on the military. The current level is approximately 85 percent of what was spent during the Cold War.
DECLINING MILITARY THREAT: Spending $325 billion may have had some justification during the arms race with the Soviet Union. Many portrayed the United States as locked in a life and death struggle with the so-called "evil-empire." In December 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved. Now it is appropriate to have a significantly lower budget with the threat so much smaller. Iran's military budget is less than $5 billion. North Korea spends $5.4 billion annually on the military, which is about one-third of what South Korea spends -- $15 billion.
NEW "ENEMIES" WEAK MILITARY POWERS: Even a repeat of "Desert Storm" is farfetched: the Iraqi military is much weaker than in 1991 due to sanctions and international inspections; other "rogue" states such as North Korea and Cuba seem to be teetering on the brink of collapse; and Iran, Libya and Syria have moderated their policies in recent years. Moreover, the United States spends more than twice as much on the military as the next nine likely "enemies" (China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Serbia and Cuba) combined; the U.S., our NATO allies, Japan and South Korea account for slightly over 60 percent of the world's military spending. As Lt. Gen. Patrick M. Hughes, director, Defense Intelligence Agency stated in 1997:
"From a national security standpoint, the threats facing the United States have diminished in order of magnitude and we are unlikely to face a global military challenger on the scale of the former Soviet Union for at least the next two decades. The world is spending in real terms some 30 percent to 40 percent less on defense than it did during the height of the Cold War, the "rogue" states are relatively isolated, and at least one -- North Korea -- is probably terminal." Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Feb. 6, 1997
OUTDATED PENTAGON STRATEGY: One of the main reasons for excess spending is the Pentagon's own war fighting strategy, which is predicated on the assumption that the United States be able to fight and win two major regional conflicts almost simultaneously, with little or no warning and little assistance from allies. However, the December 1997 National Defense Panel report entitled "Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century" contends that the two war concept "may have become a force-protection mechanism -- a means of justifying the current force structure." Indeed, the types of weapons which Congress and the Pentagon are currently purchasing are designed to fight the Cold War. They are not suited to the types of threats the United States is likely to face in the future.
An interesting point: if military spending accounts for "a little over half of the discretionary spending (funding over which the President and Congress have direct control) in the annual federal budget", one wonders how any government could cut taxes, increase military spending, and still not move into deficit spending.
please include the costs for all the "military situations/exercises" this Administration has charged our military with the past 8 years....including all the costs of bombs, missiles, peace keeping, and all the etc's...
I certainly hope that the people preparing the defence budgets assume a degree of mission-related expense and material attrition. If they don't, somebody needs to go back to budget school. |
