Military budgets

[Robert Ewing]

Military budgets in most western countries are extremely well devised, as it's a sort of pivotal point on any country. It ensures that every aspect of ones land is protected efficiently against any type of attack, terrorism, espionage, assassinations, sabotage from any country that is deemed to be a threat. And they have to have offensive forces to look after the countries interests.

It's only LEDC's that have sucky military spending. For example, Libya clearly didn't have enough military, as it has recently gone through a coup. But places like North Korea is pumping all of their GDP into their military, purely because they want to show off to their big friend, China.

Some countries are bound by constitution to limit their military spending, such as Germany and Japan. For example, if Japan uses their armed forces for anything BUT defence, that is grounds for the entire UN, and anyone else who might want to join in to declare open war on them instantly.

And that's without mentioning the internal military cells that operate in every country such as the CIA, MI5, SI7 etc.

Fact of the matter is, big countries have big military's, because they have big problems. China is in all sorts of crisis that we don't even hear about, maybe with the exception of Tibet. All these big countries are constantly sending their armies to places WITHIN their own country to sort out disputes that are out of control, and civil unrest etc.

Western countries seem to be the exception, because while we all have properly big military (America, Britain, France, Germany ranking in the top 15) we don't send them to any internal struggles. The only time our armies are used for anything but 'defending useless plots of land' is when there is a natural disaster. Nah, Western countries tend to focus their armies on looking after the countries interest. Whether that being helping out a country that is beneficial to them, or just invading Iraq for no good reason... Cough...

 

[Magikarp]

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).

This is all incredibly worrying
Especially as, since all the important political figures are in on it, there's no way to stop them with laws and such...

 

[BENZOOKA]

Finland is in process of cutting down Defence Force budget (by shutting down brigades and lessening personnel) for 60-70 million savings from the estimated 3,7 billion.

Any way I look at it, OP's idea is simply impossible.

Even if there was such a thing, there would be ways to work around it. Just like you can't have infantry mines as such anymore; they're simply called explosives now.

Ridiculous proportions in military budget is, more or less only, a problem for the world police nation.

 

[madster11]

Defense spending is only a problem for the US. Why the hell do they need to spend more than double Chinas budget?
Think of what $350 trillion (1/2 the budget) could do for your economy if it was invested and used correctly in industry. No, you don't need such a large fucking military force when so many of your normal citizens have access to military level equipment and would gladly fuck up any invading force.

In Australia, we really need to increase our budget up to about 30bil at the least, considering if the US ever drops support we would be invaded by another close country faster than you could fucking blink, and when we have a military force large enough to defend MAYBE 1 of our states, you know there's a problem.
If it was a small scale war, we would easily win. Our training and equipment is some of the best in the world. But we would lose very, very badly if a full scale invasion happened.

The only country on this planet that can threaten the US at the moment is China, and the only way they could win is to bury you in bodies. Do you think they want to reduce the worlds population so much? Hell no, Chinese citizens want to buy all your shit.

Australia can be threatened by, for example, India. Using NOTHING other than their planes, they could take our country. The Su-30 is a decent match for our F/A-18s. India has 150 of them. We have 70 F-18s, meaning we'd have to take out 3 for every 1 plane lost and THEN start on the MiG-29s. They would clear our skies within a few hours and then send their bombers in, before we admit defeat and give the our country within a week.

 

[StBishop]

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...

The US military budget on 06 was on par with the Australian National Budget.

As in the entire budget.

OT: whatever, it'll never happen.

 

[NightHawk21]

Would never work. For starters not every nation in the world can currently agree on anything, not to mention a cap on military budgets. Secondly, the risk that someone breaks this budget in secret are too high. That being said I do think America should cut some of its spending and put it to programs like NASA.

 

[Hazy992]

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

Yea, but would you really be worried about them exceeding a national budget?

OT: It sure is a nice idea, but I don't see most countries going for it. Especially a certain country who's current military budget rivals the total amount of money in the known galaxy.

No my point was he said 'Would it be realistic for fighting organisations such as terrorist groups?' and I was pointing out that terrorists don't exactly play by the rules to begin with, so a pre-arranged budget would hardly apply to them would it?

 

[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).

This is all incredibly worrying
Especially as, since all the important political figures are in on it, there's no way to stop them with laws and such...

Unfortunately it's unlikely to be cut down anytime soon. In fact, some Republicans want even MORE money put into the defence budget. (As I said before, this is done in an attempt to "play ball" and appease the guys paying you the big bucks)
Since we live in the age of fear, where absolutely anyone can be labled as a terrorist, defence is seen as a top priority. I do think that Obama tried to cut the defence budget slightly, but he was immediately shouted down by Fox News and all the other loons as "risking our safety". No polititian wants to compromise their seat by having people think that about them.

America's budget as a whole, is constantly being slashed and reduced. Unfortunately it is always public programs such as education and police. The result of the latter can be found here:http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500202_162-20076790.html


EDIT: A more extreme result of the power PMC's have in America can be found here - http://warincontext.org/2011/12/12/predator-drones-employed-by-u-s-police/
So now, even if there was no war, private companies can still abuse their position.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Military budgets in most western countries are extremely well devised, as it's a sort of pivotal point on any country. It ensures that every aspect of ones land is protected efficiently against any type of attack, terrorism, espionage, assassinations, sabotage from any country that is deemed to be a threat. And they have to have offensive forces to look after the countries interests.

That depends on the nation, some of that legally might or would have to be done by police forces, mind.

For example, if Japan uses their armed forces for anything BUT defence, that is grounds for the entire UN, and anyone else who might want to join in to declare open war on them instantly.

Not true, they sent forces to Iraq, IIRC. They had to change the rules to do this, mind.

In Australia, we really need to increase our budget up to about 30bil at the least, considering if the US ever drops support we would be invaded by another close country faster than you could fucking blink, and when we have a military force large enough to defend MAYBE 1 of our states, you know there's a problem.
If it was a small scale war, we would easily win. Our training and equipment is some of the best in the world. But we would lose very, very badly if a full scale invasion happened.

Firstly, yes, the close ties with the US is one of the reasons the ADF isn't bigger than it is.

But, putting the US aside for a moment, who is going to invade Australia? What military has the logistical capability to defeat Australia and its remaining allies (including the UK)? Not merely the raw numbers of troops, the tankers and transport vehicles to get an invasion force all the way to Australia's coastline, form a bridgehead, and push inland? Troop numbers are utterly irrelevant if they can't be deployed and equipped where you need them to be. Likewise, China simply can't flood the US with troops and rely on numbers because there's an ocean in the way, and China doesn't have a navy anywhere big enough for the task.

Anyway, once you get to Australia, of course, you've still got far too much territory to take and hold. Even if you ignore anything that isn't a major city, the distance between Sydney and Melbourne is the length of Italy.

Australia can be threatened by, for example, India. Using NOTHING other than their planes, they could take our country. The Su-30 is a decent match for our F/A-18s. India has 150 of them. We have 70 F-18s, meaning we'd have to take out 3 for every 1 plane lost and THEN start on the MiG-29s. They would clear our skies within a few hours and then send their bombers in, before we admit defeat and give the our country within a week.

The distance from India to Australia is about 7,200 km. The effective range of a Su-30 is about 5,000km.

Also, and very importantly, there's no reason for India to attack Australia. If it wanted to conquer someone, there's plenty of better targets. And there's no advantage to doing so anyway.

Australia isn't at risk of invasion because, on top of anything else, there's no reason for anyone to want to invade it.

EDIT: The distances are from centre of India to centre of Australia, it seems. The Indian Su-30, with mid-flight refueling, might be able to run out of fuel and crash in the northern territory.

 

[Sean951]

The US budget, while about $200-300 billion more than I would like, does allow our western allies to focus less on defense. Why would Britain want a massive fleet when they can ask the US to send a carrier task force (assuming Britain's are otherwise engaged).

 

[Esotera]

In NATO countries I think each member has to spend 2% or more of its GDP on its military, quite a few European countries were getting flak recently for spending less than this.

I think most people would be fine with it apart from the crazy countries who would pretty much fall apart without a big military complex; dictatorships like North Korea, and America, whose economy relies quite a bit on the industry.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I doubt it would be realistic as it would never happen.

No country is going to want to "underfund" it's military unless it really had to.

And some continue anyway. People starving? More missiles.

OT: More nations would quite simply hide the real extent of their spending on the military like the United States already do.

 

[VoidWanderer]

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?

I would love to watch America fall over in shock when their economy starts to receover properly.

 

[somonels]

Why do we even bother with these 'open' figures, let's talk a bit about the covert R&D expenses. Like the LCD screen tech that can actually be used as a low-end camera? Eyes everywhere, man.

Also take into consideration that the americas are an active participant in conflicts, not to mention habitual warmongers.

 

[xGraeme63x]

I'm really dissapointed in the Canadian government for cutting the defence budget again.

"The Canadian Forces will get rid of its air-defence equipment, some missile launchers and older tanks, and cut back on army training, according to documents leaked to the Ottawa Citizen."

"In addition, the decision to get rid of the newly purchased TOW 2 missiles doesn?t make sense, they say, since the savings would be around $20 million, while more than $100 million was spent to acquire the weapons.

Larger savings will come from the decision to cut army training on what that service considers non-essential activities. This includes maintenance and repair, garrison support, as well as personnel and information technology support, according to the documents. These cuts will save around $127 million.

Reducing the number of reservists who are now serving in full-time positions will save another $82 million. Many of these reservists are at various headquarters. The number of these reservists would drop from 7,200 to 4,500 by the spring of 2014.

Among the other initiatives outlined in the documents:"

The budget for the CF is already low, and I don't see the need to cut it. Stop spending money on other crap, and help out our troops. It frustrates me a lot, and I saddens me because I was looking to enlist, but now I see how much the goverment values of military, I might wait for a new party to come into power.

Link to quotes: http://digital.edmontonjournal.com/epaper/viewer.aspx