Military budgets

[Magikarp]

War...War never changes.
Oh wait, yes it does. For one thing, it gets more expensive over time, with things like technological advancements.
So, I was thinking, what if there was a worldwide agreed limit on military budgets? Would it be possible to enforce? Would it be realistic for fighting organisations such as terrorist groups?


EDIT: Interesting views. So, what if, instead of every country having the same military budget, military budgets had to be proportional to population, GDP, or other government spending?

 

[dragonswarrior]

Possibly in a couple of decades, at the soonest.

It would be awesome if that did happen. But there are other and better ways of getting more world peace out there.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Well, it was put into the treaty of Versailles and Japan and the US tried it as well. Worked out pretty well, we should keep it up.

 

[Hazy992]

Terrorist groups? They don't exactly play by the rules in the first place do they?

 

[dyre]

If you set the limit to $700 billion annually, you might even get the US to agree

It would never work anyway. Too many ways to easily dodge it (our missile research isn't for the military...it's for civilian space programs!). And any limit that would affect countries other than the US would have to cut the US' budget to like 10% of what it is now...

 

[MrTub]

Terrorist groups? They don't exactly play by the rules in the first place do they?

This.

OT: If anything, my country needs to increase it's budget just for being able to train our troops in the first place. Theres a 1 year waiting list for my Army because we don't have enough funding. The government would rather give stupid teenage mothers 500 bucks a fortnight for getting knocked up than to train troops to protect us.

Yep cause you guys really need more soldiers, China&Russia could invade any second now..

Herpaderp thought you were american, ignore my post

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Every problem I can imagine popping up, such as budget-to-size ratio, I can't think of any major flaws with like other problems. That might just be my current state of mind speaking.

We really should limit our (US) army budget, it's really trumping NASA and cancer funding.

Well, it was put into the treaty of Versailles... Worked out pretty well, we should keep it up.

Thaaaaat's not really a good analogy.

 

[Hazy992]

Every problem I can imagine popping up, such as budget-to-size ratio, I can't think of any major flaws with like other problems. That might just be my current state of mind speaking.

We really should limit our (US) army budget, it's really trumping NASA and cancer funding.

Well, it was put into the treaty of Versailles... Worked out pretty well, we should keep it up.

Thaaaaat's not really a good analogy.

I think he was being sarcastic.

 

[WolfThomas]

I think with somethings people expect the budgets to stay the same but for their to be continuous improvement. Which is just not possible. It's not just military but fields like medicine. Soldiers are far far safer these days and wars are fought far more effectively, but it is at an ever increasing cost.

If you think about you're average infantryman 200 years ago, all the government had to do was pay for food and wage, supply him with a musket, ammunition and uniform, drill them enough to fight effectively. Nowadays the infantryman has modern automatic weaponry, advanced bodyarmour, communications equipment and all other sorts of innovations, along with months of training to be as effective as possible. Not to mention all the combat multipliers used to help him out (UAV drones, airsupport, armour).

It's like in medicine. 50 years ago you gave pencillin, pain relief and took some x-rays. Many of the surgeries were not invented or more basic. Nowadays we have MRIs, highly complex new drugs and all sorts of other innovations. To expect to keep to a similar budget of the past is not practical.

So er off topic a bit there. I don't think it's possible to agree to military budget limits, plus there are always ways around it. The post Versailles' treaty Nazis showed us that.

 

[Magikarp]

here ya go compare the budgets

http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

..Wow. America must REALLY like their military. Why does it need to be so much higher than other countries'?

 

[Hazy992]

here ya go compare the budgets

http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

..Wow. America must REALLY like their military. Why does it need to be so much higher than other countries'?

This is why:

 

[idarkphoenixi]

here ya go compare the budgets

http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

..Wow. America must REALLY like their military. Why does it need to be so much higher than other countries'?

Private companies make bank off America's military budget. You know America has spent over 1 trillion dollars on a jet program alone? Heres the thing, they don't even have the planes yet! They were in such shambles as far as quality goes, the pilots were constantly passing out in mid-flight because of shitty oxygen supplies. As far as those jets go, I believe it wont even be close to ready until 2020.

The point is that this isn't so much about 'defence' as it is getting great stinking wads of cash. That's why mercenaries like blackwater are making billions off the tax-payers dollars.

 

[Magikarp]

here ya go compare the budgets

http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

..Wow. America must REALLY like their military. Why does it need to be so much higher than other countries'?

Private companies make bank off America's military budget. You know America has spent over 1 trillion dollars on a jet program alone? Heres the thing, they don't even have the planes yet! They were in such shambles as far as quality goes, the pilots were constantly passing out in mid-flight because of shitty oxygen supplies. As far as those jets go, I believe it wont even be close to ready until 2020.

The point is that this isn't so much about 'defence' as it is getting great stinking wads of cash. That's why mercenaries like blackwater are making billions off the tax-payers dollars.

I really don't get PMCs like blackwater. I would've thought that the government would perceive them as a potential threat & ban them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm not sure it gets more expensive in real terms. The numbers might go up, but so does productivity and resources.

As to limits...such things have been tried and failed many times in the past.

Unfortunately, we only have 26k in our Army, and that includes many of the non-combat roles.

Er, Australia, right? 60,000 in the army.

Also, they occasionally talk about expanding the military, but the argument against it is that it's better to have a small, well-equipped force than a larger less well funded force. The more they increase the force, the more they have to accept shortcomings in quality.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

War...War never changes.
Oh wait, yes it does. For one thing, it gets more expensive over time, with things like technological advancements.
So, I was thinking, what if there was a worldwide agreed limit on military budgets? Would it be possible to enforce? Would it be realistic for fighting organisations such as terrorist groups?


EDIT: Interesting views. So, what if, instead of every country having the same military budget, military budgets had to be proportional to population, GDP, or other government spending?

There have actually been this like this in the past: http://www.ww2ships.com/documents/doc0003-wash1922.shtml

Also If you look at the treaty of Versailles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#Military_restrictions

Germany had restrictions on it's military... it subsequently broke just about all of these restrictions.

So basically you're in a position where it's great if everyone follows the law but as soon as one person breaks it they're at an immediate advantage.

Also as for proportional population budgets wouldn't work as it'll just mean that pretty much means China and India will win every war because they're allowed to spend a fucktload more than anyone else.
Proportional to GDP or a % cap on Gov Spending maybe but again that just means the richest countries pretty much WILL win wars.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

I really don't get PMCs like blackwater. I would've thought that the government would perceive them as a potential threat & ban them.

That would be the logical conclusion. In fact, pmc's working for America have already had contracts with middle-eastern nations.
'Training' their troops etc...

The money gets spread around though. Mercenaries (I prefer using the real term) are one of the most affluential lobbying powers in America. Senators get paid millions to vote more power to the private military industry.
If you work in the Government and play ball, then when you retire, a company such as BlackWater will have a cushy, high paying job ready for you. That's how it works with banks and big oil too.


There is also the more gruesome aspect to being a private miliary industry: You don't ask a lot of questions on what your missions are. However awful (and possibly illegal) they might be. It doesn't take much searching to come with some of the horiffic things BlackWater has been responsible for. This is probably why they have changed their name half a dozen times (last time I checked, they were called Academi).