top 67 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

One thing to keep in mind is that defense spending tends to rely heavily on local provision. You generally can't just import soldiers, and keeping military-industrial supply chains local or at minimum trusted is also a requirement. So using something like a PPP-adjusted figure rather than a nominal figure is probably going to be closer to what you're actually buying, and that rather considerably diminishes the difference.

kagis for someone discussing the matter

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/chinas-military-rise-comparative-military-spending-china-and-us

Given current data, China’s military expenditure in PPP terms is estimated to be $541 billion, or 59% of US spending, and its equipment levels are only 42% of US levels. Comparing trends over time shows that the US has matched China in recent years, albeit at the cost of a much higher defence burden.

The underlying mechanism here is that China has a lot of people who will work for rather-lower wages than in the US, which means that each nominal dollar China budgets for their military can buy them more military capacity than in the US, via taking advantage of those lower wages.

If the US had a large supply of workers willing to work at Chinese wages, and could use them to drive its military and military-industrial system, that wouldn't be a factor.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Isn't it "War Spending" now?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago*

    "War" spending, now.

    Edit: I am slow

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    And most of it goes either into super inflated prices for the most silly things, or into projects that no one can talk about and are unsupervised.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    And it virtually only ever goes up. More and more of our labor is going towards feeding the imperial war machine, while social services are gutted. Our corrupt politicians just want to line the pockets of the corporations that make bombs, and they start conflicts around the globe to justify it. The primary function of the military is essentially money laundering, to channel public funds into private hands.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hold up. I see three NATO countries in that top-spending list, yet Trump is crying that they don't spend enough? It seems, as everyone seems to agree, that the problem is the US spends way too much. But since US "defense" spending is an obvious grift to shift public money to private pockets this isn't too surprising.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Socialize (military) spending, vassalize smaller countries, privatize wealth, that's the american way of running businesses

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Isn't the USA numbers very skewed because they include like healthcare and pensions in their numbers, even for former soldiers, while say europeans don't?

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Also, (and I'm no kind of expert) it seems there's a lot of graft involved in the spending, such as $67 charged for a screw, and that kind of thing. A good bit of it due to a kickback-type arrangement between the politicians involved (think Dick Cheney) and the defense contractors who get awarded the deals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Some of those "$50 screw" numbers come from cancelling projects with high total cost. A contract might be paid to produce a thousand of something and get cancelled after making 10 of them, inflating the per unit cost by a ton

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The Army manual says that screw must meet X, Y, and Z specs. If you don't have the tooling for those exact specs, you're going to charge more to make up the cost of retooling.

    Of course there's grift and plain foolishness. Local base Commander paid a painter I knew to stop work for two weeks and screw around waiting for his commander to visit. Wanted the boss to see the painters in action, look busy.

    Speaking of specs, there are old rules that never changed. Worked at a print shop where a standard 24x36" blueprint was $.63. Nope. Navy had to have the final set of plans printed on plastic media, $3/page. Now multiply by 150 for a modest set of prints.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    i think its a very small percentage, only 62billion goes to healthcare in the defense budget. half goes to defense contractors, which is huge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I read it brings USA down under 3.5% of GDP but I'd love some better sources on that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    i was mentioning the 62billion out of the 900billion/year. its seems very small if you think about how many service members(enlisted and officers) + thier families.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well that was the thing, they say defence contractors, but some of it goes to pensioins and healthcare.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    2 Trillions that could have been invested in education, science and welfare instead.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    its "necessary" once you figure out that when people get tired of the complications caused by it, they are willing to use the military to quash discent on behalf of the elite class, to maintain control.

    all i know is, i play warhammer total war 3 a lot. and when my skavens are starving and start an uprising, i just send a lord with his army to quash the discenters, and maintain control.

    simple as.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Peter G. Peterson

    The most "Booty McBootface" type white name I've seen.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • If the VA was a military it would be in the top 5.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    yet they still lost against the Taliban,

    shame

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    More of a “tactical surrender” like every conflict they get into.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    We don't really fight wars like the ancients did, which is a good thing. Back then, it was total war with either wholesale enslavement of the population, or killing whoever you could get your hands on, then salting all arable land to kill off whoever was left, and to ensure nobody could live there for centuries.

    It was brutally effective and completely wiped entire civilizations off the map.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Why are you bringing ancient roman warfare?

    By that logic the allies didn't win ww2?

    The US military is machine designed to siphoning public tax fund towards shareholders pockets.

    that's why it lost a 20 year war against the poorest people on the planet.

    the was was lost, but the profit was amazing for the real winners. ie, shareholders.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The United States provides security guarantees for most of the western world. That was the entire point of post-WWII reconstruction.

    The US will provide security guarantees. Participating countries will provide free market access to their citizens.

    - The Marshall Plan

    The US has been in a position to overspend (proportionally) on defense due to having the strongest economy basically since WWII. Other countries are able to invest in their own economy, innovation or infrastructure without needing to spend money on defense.

    Ignoring any Trump jingoism, look at NATO expenditures. These countries agreed to a certain level of spending based on their GDP so the US wasn’t the sole guarantor, but no one met their obligations for decades.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • The United States provides security guarantees for most of the western world

    This is just American exceptionalism. The west hasn't waged a "defensive" war since 1945, all it's done with its militaries is destroy other countries: Vietnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Yugoslavia are just a few examples that come to mind, tens of millions of lives lost and tens of millions more ruined just in these conflicts.

    The world would be a far, far, FAR better place if the west didn't have this level of military capabilities.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The US is completely free to reduce their spending to match the rest of NATO but does not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    We can make an argument about net expenditures.

    Is the US carrying too much of the burden? If that is true AND the US wants to reduce its spending, then other nations need to increase theirs to keep the net expenditure close to before.

    Let’s hand wave discussions on waste in procurement (a big issue for the US DOD). Same as we’ll hand wave the veteran benefits portion of expenditures.

    If we don’t see that commensurate expenditure, then what becomes of the NATO security guarantee?

    We can’t be naive enough to expect all adversaries to make similar reductions in their military spending.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's gonna be funny though when the aliens finally show up and obliterate the US without even trying. lmao

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    at least half goes to defense contractors.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    When you hate and fear everyone, this is what you spend your money on.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Depends on how you define "necessary".

    More than actual use, the American military is about "implied threat"

    "Do as we say, or else".

    Its always been that way. Without the implied threat, the other world leaders would have told cheetolini to pound sand on day one.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    But its not just military. What about tech? Most governments are using American services. They whee told by Microsoft that their laws don't matter and they have to follow US law for data access. Nobody moved away. The states could destroy a western country by just not allowing access to big tech. And if they sanctioned a country, well kaous.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Y.S.K. some countries are bigger than others. Per capita or G.T.F.O.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    This is the weirdest justification to me. Military spending is for specific purposes. Like, if your hostile neighbor has twice the population as you and spends X dollars, then you don't spend 0.5 * X dollars. You're probably going to end up with higher spending per capita in order to reach parity. So why on earth would we compare by capita?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Building all my bombs in the Vatican so I get that high per capita ratio

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Please look at basically any asymmetric war in the past 75 years. E.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Ukraine.

    You do not need to spend as much on defense as your larger opponent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah, now look at casualty rates in Vietnam and Afghanistan and ask yourself whether that's really what most people would pick as a Plan A.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Looking at just combatant deaths:

    Conflict Country / Side Years Active Total Military Deaths Duration (Days) Deaths per Day (Avg.) Approx. Troops Engaged Deaths per 1,000 Troops (Full War) Relative Intensity (U.S. in Vietnam = 1×)
    WWII – European Theater USSR (Red Army) 1941–1945 ~8,700,000 ~1,410 ≈6,170/day ~34,000,000 ~255 ≈310×
    WWII – European Theater Germany (Wehrmacht) 1941–1945 ~4,300,000 ~1,410 ≈3,050/day ~17,000,000 ~250 ≈150×
    Vietnam War North Vietnam (PAVN + VC) 1965–1975 ~600,000–800,000 ~3,650 ≈165–220/day ~3,000,000 ~230 ≈8–11×
    Vietnam War South Vietnam (ARVN) 1965–1975 ~250,000–313,000 ~3,650 ≈70–85/day ~850,000–1,000,000 ~280 ≈4×
    Vietnam War United States 1965–1973 58,220 ~2,920 ≈19.9/day ~2,700,000 ~21 1× (baseline)
    Soviet–Afghan War USSR 1979–1989 14,453 ~3,330 ≈4.3/day ~620,000 ~23 0.2×
    Soviet–Afghan War Afghan Mujahideen 1979–1989 ~75,000–90,000 ~3,330 ≈23–27/day ~250,000–300,000 ~300 ≈1–1.3×
    U.S.–Afghan War United States 2001–2021 2,461 ~7,270 ≈0.34/day ~775,000 (rotated) ~3 0.017×
    U.S.–Afghan War Afghan National Forces 2001–2021 ~66,000 ~7,270 ≈9/day ~300,000 ~220 ≈0.45×
    U.S.–Afghan War Taliban & Insurgents 2001–2021 ~52,000–60,000 ~7,270 ≈7–8/day ~200,000–250,000 ~250 ≈0.35×

    Now look at combatants and civilians:

    Conflict Country / Side Years Active Military Deaths Civilian Deaths Duration (Days) Total Deaths/Day (Avg.) Approx. Troops / Population Affected Relative Intensity (U.S. in Vietnam = 1×)
    WWII – European Theater USSR (Red Army + Civilians) 1941–1945 ~8,700,000 ~15,000,000 ~1,410 ≈16,900/day ~34M troops / 110M pop ≈850×
    WWII – European Theater Germany (Wehrmacht + Civilians) 1941–1945 ~4,300,000 ~3,800,000 ~1,410 ≈5,750/day ~17M troops / 70M pop ≈290×
    Vietnam War North Vietnam (PAVN + VC + Civilians) 1965–1975 ~600,000–800,000 ~1,000,000 ~3,650 ≈440–500/day ~3M troops / 17M pop ≈22–25×
    Vietnam War South Vietnam (ARVN + Civilians) 1965–1975 ~250,000–313,000 ~1,000,000 ~3,650 ≈340–360/day ~1M troops / 18M pop ≈17×
    Vietnam War United States 1965–1973 58,220 N/A ~2,920 ≈19.9/day ~2.7M troops 1× (baseline)
    Soviet–Afghan War USSR 1979–1989 14,453 N/A ~3,330 ≈4.3/day ~620,000 0.2×
    Soviet–Afghan War Afghan Mujahideen + Civilians 1979–1989 ~75,000–90,000 ~850,000–1,000,000 ~3,330 ≈280–330/day ~15–17M pop ≈14–17×
    U.S.–Afghan War United States 2001–2021 2,461 N/A ~7,270 ≈0.34/day ~775,000 0.017×
    U.S.–Afghan War Afghan National Forces + Civilians 2001–2021 ~66,000 ~46,000 ~7,270 ≈15/day ~35M pop ≈0.7×
    U.S.–Afghan War Taliban & Insurgents 2001–2021 ~52,000–60,000 – ~7,270 ≈7–8/day ~200,000–250,000 ≈0.35×

    So now let’s look at the Vietnam war and military expenditure for each side:

    Country / Side Years Active Estimated Military Expenditure (1965–1975) Approx. 2025 USD (Inflation-Adjusted) Military Deaths Combatant Deaths per $1B (2025 USD) Notes
    United States 1965–1973 ~$141 billion (nominal) ≈$1.3 trillion (2025 USD) 58,220 ≈45 deaths per $1B Includes DoD + support spending; excludes veterans’ costs
    North Vietnam (PAVN + VC) 1965–1975 ~$4.6 billion (nominal, incl. Soviet/Chinese aid) ≈$43 billion (2025 USD) ~700,000 ≈16,000 deaths per $1B Relied heavily on foreign aid and low-cost mobilization
    Metric Result Meaning
    Expenditure ratio (U.S. ÷ N. Vietnam) ≈30× U.S. spent ~30× more than North Vietnam
    Combat deaths ratio (N. Vietnam ÷ U.S.) ≈12× North Vietnam suffered ~12× more combat deaths
    Cost-per-death ratio (U.S. ÷ N. Vietnam) ≈350× U.S. spent ~350× more dollars per soldier killed

    Interpretation:

    • North Vietnam traded manpower for resources, accepting high losses.
    • The U.S. used capital- and technology-intensive warfare.
    • Despite enormous expenditure, asymmetric strategy and morale offset the imbalance.

    Tie it all together… in total war against a near peer, casualty rates are significantly higher. 50x for the Red Army in WWII, 17x for the Wehrmacht.

    In asymmetric war, casualty rates are lower overall. And total GDP expenditure is significantly lower.

    I don’t want to ignore the human cost here. But we’re talking about specific quantifiable metrics here, not the emotional trauma

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    That was entirely unnecessary and missing the point.

    I don’t want to ignore the human cost here. But we’re talking about specific quantifiable metrics here, not the emotional trauma

    Then it's not a valid analysis.

    What question are you even trying to answer here? Because whatever it is seems to be entirely unrelated to anything I was talking about.

    I just realized you wrote the infuriatingly wrong claim, "North Vietnam traded manpower for resources, accepting high losses." No, dumbass, they didn't skimp on equipment because they were "willing to accept casualties," they didn't have money for equipment and fought tooth and nail with everything they had to avoid colonial subjugation. It wasn't some kind of policy choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Most of that money stays in the country. If we shut down the tiny helicopter training base by my house, it would crush the local economy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I think it's a somewhat credible theory I've heard that a large portion of our "defense" spending goes towards larger and larger bribes to countries around the world either to not go to war or to maintain trade relations with the United States in order to maintain U.S. hegemony.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I'm surprised Japan is at #9, I would've expected Sweden or Finland above them

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Who knows how much of that money is completely wasted. Remember pizzas for $500 USD, or whatever the exact price was?

  • source