Think we don't spend enough on defense? Consider these numbing figures:

The US & NATO account for 2/3 of all the military spending of all the nations of the world combined. And we have more big-spending allies in the Middle East and the Pacific. Between the US, NATO, and our other allies around the world, the "Western Bloc" accounts for about 80% of the total military expenditures of the world. Here's the breakdown:

Total World Military Spending: ~$755 billion
USA: $300 billion
NATO: $250 billion
Other US Allies: $85 billion
Everybody Else: $120 billion

Now, consider the main "threat nations" amongst the "Everybody Else" category...
China: $30 billion
North Korea: $4.3 billion
Iran: $6 billion
Cuba: $1.1 billion
Syria: $3.7 billion
Russia: $10 billion

I should point out that Russia's budget is even less in real terms, considering hyperinflation, corruption, and other problems.

Also should be pointed out that the vast majority of non-US allied nations are not enemies at all. Most of them are neutrals or on friendly terms but with no formal alliances. Some of these "neutrals" will in fact soon be part of NATO. So the Western Bloc's share of the pie is growing.

Only a handful of nations could be considered as possible threats, and even if we had to take them all on at once (imagine China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and Russia all starting a fight with the Western world at the same time) they would be totally outmatched both in spending and in sheer numbers also.

The facts are there for anyone with enough brains to look. You guys have this false image of the world because there is always a concerted effort by the so-called "military industrial establishment" to find ways to justify their bloated existence. There's never a shortage of generals, contractors, and other "experts" around to tell us what a dangerous world we live in. This establishment will never actually talk facts and figures because it would give the lie to their statements. Instead they'll use scaremongering tactics and vague references to the 1930's, as if the comparison was even valid - which it isn't!

WWII was about oil and WWIII will be for water!? That is my guess.

Two comments you make that I noticed:

"The facts are there for anyone with enough brains to look." and "Well guess what? It's a crock of sh*t, and most of you have been duped!"

You seem to imply that if we disagree with you, we are stupid people, or at least people without "enough brains" to have been "duped." Did you want a discussion, or a forum to rant?

The whole point of having a military, and the money to spend on the technology, is NOT to "win by a little," or "by just enough." Rather, it is to be able to win so completely that we will, theoretically at least, stop the war before it starts through sheer intimidation. Failing that, we want to kick the other guy so hard that he's not going to get up and we don't get hurt.

I'm sorry you seem to be taking such a moral high road on this view, but the pragmatic perspective dictates that if you can spend the money, spend it; if you can be the biggest bully on the block, then you will be the biggest bully on the block.

MBaxter, you seem to see a "right" and a "wrong" to this issue. I only contend that it's just human nature. If Russia had been able to out-spend, out-technology, and out-muscle us, they would have. Same for China, England, Japan, Germany, Yugoslavia, and Guam.

MBaxter, I respect your feelings about the United States' role as a world (excess)power, but don't think its something that can so easily be expressed with a "that's not right!" temper tantrum. It's just life, get over it and be thankful you're on our side. Or, travel a little and see if you might enjoy living in another country.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Seriously, you make some good points. You're certainly right about one thing: no country would ever complain about being on top!

Ah ha! Common ground! First, even now, with a (very!) determined enemy, I still think we'd take a few combat losses, however:

If, and only IF we were to still be so powerful as to keep our level of deterrence (this itself open to argument), then I agree. We need to slow the defense spending, and let the size of our forces remain. You still can't go backwards. My one reservation is your data supporting the claim that we are so powerful: using the amount we spend on our military as your proof. There's a leap in logic in there...though your assumptions are logical. You need to really know where each and every dollar really goes, after all, I doubt any other nation pays $675.98 for a hammer. On sale.

My understanding is that we can NOT currently field two Major Regional Conflicts (MRC's) at this time. From what information I've heard, our airwar in Kosovo really did stretch our resources. Had someone like Saddam again initiated hostilities with Kuwait, we would not have had the resources to answer him.

I'm a firm believer, and for NO GOOD REASON, that we should be able to handle two MRC's at one time with reasonable ease. Who is going to attack us? And on two fronts? I haven't a clue. What two major conflicts might we need to be involved in at one time? I could give some guesses as could you, but even that I admit is a remote possibility.

I just like being the Nation on top, I guess. Again, let me say Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum. Remember what that means?

MBaxter, for what it's worth, I'm against the F-22 program. Too much money for not enough return, especially when there's so many other options. I agree, we probably don't need to be as powerful as you say we are, but might we agree to err on the safe side?

Si Vis and you know the rest,

Also, what about the actual areas that the money is spent? We tend to invest in a lot of high-tech stuff, and it's costly. The Eastern Bloc, as I have been led to believe, focuses more on hardware that works well, if not for a long time. Example: MiG 29 avionics still do not match that of Eagles and Vipers.

Could this reflect a difference in dollar amounts, too? Looking for opinions on this.

Si Vis etc

I also question the theory that Russia gets more "bang per buck" than we do for their defense dollars. It looks to me like they're getting less. I blame this on inefficiency and corruption. I'll concede maybe China gets more bang per buck but they are not the big exporters that the Russians are.

There's a lot of Third World nations paying way too much for a lot of overpriced Russian hardware. And it is such Third World nations, not the Russians or Chinese, that the US can expect to fight in the future.

Also, I think the results of the last several modern wars have shown that the low-tech vs. high-tech argument has been settled in favor of high-tech. This is because technology has assumed a greater role in warfare than in the past.

Decades ago, technology was far less important in warfare. Even relatively primitive nations could put up a good fight against a technologically superior foe. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore, at least not in conventional warfare.

A high-tech Western force can wipe out a much larger Soviet-equipped force without having to spend as much money as you think. An AIM-120 that costs only a fraction of the Mig-29 it destroys. Same for the Maverick or Hellfire that blows away a T-72. Or the LGB that decimates a factory. Look at Iraq and Yugoslavia. The $ cost incurred by the US in destroying these countries was far less than the $ cost incurred by the Yugoslavs and Iraqis in absorbing what we dished out.

Interesting comparison of the cost of the weapon versus the cost of the target. Forgot about that one.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

There is no question on wheter or not the Serb SAMs could have downed more aircraft if the Serbs only would have had the guts to risk opening up the radar.
It's quite certain that they can fire a missle and hit/miss a target long before a HARM equipped plane can launch at it...

"Decades ago, technology was far less important in warfare. Even relatively primitive nations could put up a good fight against a technologically superior foe. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore, at least not in conventional warfare."

Chechenya?
Those rebels are giving the Russians a really hard fight with only AKs, RPGs, mortars and manpads...

What works best, a $50,000 dollar SAM that hits its target about .01% of the time, or a $200,000 SAM that hits its target %50 of the time? You do the math.

The high-tech way of war have been vindicated time and again over the last two decades, yet still many refuse to believe it. Whatever, the results of the next war will prove this doctrine yet again and still people will speak of how effective Soviet style hardware is on the battlefield, in the face of all evidence, and clamor for ever higher defense spending.

Speaking of "bang for buck", definitely there is more of it in Russian military spending as well as Chinese. Definitely not as much as to say that they compare to US military spending in "real terms". They do not.

OK, the price of T-80 is less than that of M1A1 on the weapons market, but comparable. However, PRODUCTION COST (and hence the rouble price for the Red Army, as all weapons manufacturers are state-owned in Russia) is surely far less than that of M1A1. Same story with everything else.

Besides, military budgets mostly consist of salaries and supplies to existing units, not new hardware. To that extent, Russian and/or Chinese grunts surely can deliver more bang for back than US (ok guys, flame away here).

Like, in Chechnya they pay to a conscript about $10 a month and to a "kontraktnik" (a pro, quite often Spetsnaz or Airborne types) about $1000 a month. And, of course, they do not use all these fancy laser guided munitions - instead they waste good ole unguided bombs, that come free of charge from overaging Warsaw Pact ammo stocks. Maybe they even save on recycling expenses this way (a very costly business, by the way).

For example, despite the ongoing Chinese buildup, the USA still has more combat aircraft, more armor, and a vastly larger navy. Of course, we also outnumber the Russians and any other country in these vital categories as well.

A lot of people don't know this. There is a common misconception that the West relies solely on quality to carry the day. Not so. The USA wins its wars not only with superior quality but also by swamping any opponent with numbers.

Even during the Cold War, Russia could only muster a 3-2 quantitative superiority over NATO. The Russians knew that wasn't good enough. And now, in 1999, the Russian inventory has shrunk to the point where they would be outnumbered just by the EU nations alone, not even counting the US.

I find it very amusing that americans think of other countries as their enemies.
The USA faces NO military threat.
Other countries just want to be left alone, without interference from the US.

Take Cuba for example, they have no interest in attacking the US mainland.
The reason they're portrayed as "bad guys" in the US, is because the US economy was robbed of a piece of land 40 years ago.
Like most of the middle, and south american revolutions, it was meant to create a better place for the people living there; to relieve them of the oppression of the (mainly) US companies.

Do not think for a second that ideology had anything to do with it, when the american war machine, either openly or covertly, chrushed the "rebels".
It was nothing else than a preservation of american economic interests.

Castro's no saint, and he's done some really bad things, but the good he's TRYING to do to Cuba's people cannot, and should not be overlooked.
When Castro seized power in '59, he quickly saw to it that the production benefited Cuba, not the US companies.
Were it not for US sanctions and trade embargos, Cuba would've been MUCH better off.
That's not Castro's fault...

To begin with, Castro was no communist, nor was the revolution a communist one.
Someone said to him once: - I didn't know it was going to be a communist revolution...
- Neither did I! Castro replied...

NATO and the US have NO right to interfere with other countries' internal affairs.

The russians were not any more interested in taking over other countries than the US was, and STILL IS!
The difference is, that by calling itself democratic, the US could, and can, do it without upsetting the world opinion.

A lot of nations are being forced to build nukes and waste precious funds on the military simply because of fear of the United States and our Chinese friends.

Take the example of India. India was reducing its military budget for several consecutive years up to 1998. But in 1998 they were forced to adopt an expensive nuclear detterent force to discourage Chinese and American expansionism into their region. China has all but taken over Burma, built new air and naval bases close to India, and has moved nuclear missiles into Tibet, right on the Indian border. The US encouraged this behavior. Meanwhile, the US keeps pressuring India's neighbors Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to allow a new US naval base on their soil. Of course the US also put sanctions on India when they did their nuke tests in 1998. India was facing incursions from the two biggest bullies in the world. They had no choice but to take a stand. So now the poor nation of India is forced to divert funds to military spending that they'd rather use on productive investment. Yet another country that the US has bullied into a hostile stance.

Very aggressive behavior, typical of an arrogant superpower. India would have been more than content to reduce military spending, and would have loved to be treated as a US ally, but the US and China put an end to this. Yet another example of how America tries to make the world a more dangerous place for our own selfish purposes.

The US/NATO destruction of the little nation of Serbia was also a frightening spectacle to witness for much of the world. The amount of new military spending that the Kosovo war has spawned in Third World nations that feel threatened by the US, cannot be counted. Who knows how much money is being wasted by nations living in fear of the US?

The US doesn't really mess with anyone that doesn't go along with it, problem is, there is still a lot of third world shmucks still unwiling to see the light.

Countries that have a problem with the US have a problem with common sense! Antagonizing the States and the rest of the develloped world (Europe, Japan, US, Australia etc...)usualy yields the following results:
Abject poverty, social unrest, war, basicaly, any negative you can think of.

Until those idiots start seeing the light and stop giving creed to their backward ways and self serving endeavours (corruption), they'll stay in the hell they're in.

Somewhere, the US and any other develloped country is the best thing that ever happened to our earth, imagine our planet being run by Saddam or some other despot!

The US is doing the right thing and so are we (Europe), nobody wants to have to go back 500 years back to cater to some retards that have a problem with reality.

------------------
Der Opa

You speak of Third World barbarians but from what I see of US policy, often as not we side with the barbarians and the despots and screw over the good guys. Witness how the US dumped Taiwan, how the US favors Turkey over Greece and turns a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds, or how the US favors the authoritarian Chinese and Pakistanis over a democratic India. There are many other examples than these of course.

No, I am not going to scare you with the great Chinese army (even less with the great Russian army).

What I am trying to say on the original topic of discussion is that while on paper USA spend FAR TOO MUCH compared to any other countries, in real-life terms it is not all that much, given that the aim superiority both in numbers and in quality and provided superiority is simultaneously needed to guarantee national security of quite a few countries apart from USA themselves.

As for USA, you don't need much more than a decent navy and airforce to secure a big island such as North American continent is.

There are quite a few third world schmuks, my friend, for whom to go along USA external policies and geopolitical agenda means acceptance of third world schmuks role forever.

The list includes, but not limited to: China, India, Russia and a bunch of others.

Read Bzhezinsky on this subj.

Not surprisingly, all these third world schmuks kind of do not take it for granted.