luan
12th September 2011 |
yes i agree this need to be fixed at once . |
Axel Harvey
2nd August 2011 |
I am happy to see that the United States do not have military expenditures. |
a simple man, seeking simple truths
17th June 2011 |
It is not a surprise that the CIA fact book omits the US in a list used to increase their own budget and justify their existence. It IS a surprise the posters of this comparison left it out, when it is so easy to calculate.
Even more shocking is the military spending per capita, also missing from this comparison. The only kinds of people with such use military spending, that comes immediately to mind, are criminal kingpins.
It goes beyond disgusting; we also borrow from the EU to maintain our troops and missiles to defend the EU; we borrow from the middle East to maintain our troops and missiles to defend the them, from the far East to do the same (x mainland China). We have troops in 160 countries !!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR "DEFENSE" |
AngryRussianBAMF
26th April 2011 |
Where is Russia on this list ? |
Mason Mitchell
25th April 2011 |
Why is the us not on their they are so number one????????? |
Geo E. - SF.CA
7th February 2010 |
missing US and Russia military spending data is highly troubling... wrecking the credibility and utility of this potentially excellent source... can you at least comment on this? |
G Accursi
19th January 2010 |
The fact that US data is left out of military catagories makes the agenda highly suspect!! |
Ben Moos
28th October 2009 |
Why are the US not in this list??????? |
Ronald Van Patten
13th September 2009 |
Why is the US omitted from all of the military stats? I would like to see them included for my own knowledge. |
SAF.ROS (Singapore)
15th March 2009 |
I would like to know that why Singapore's military spending is not found on the list??? In 2009, Singapore will be spending some S$11.447billion for its military. So, that means your source is not up-to-date and it is also not accurate. I hope to see that Singapore's military spending figure will be listed here soon. |
Alex (New York City)
3rd March 2009 |
There is a HUGE error here. The United States spends more on military than any other country by a grossly massive margin. And yet this list states China as #1, and the United States is omitted.
Heinous. Someone please fix this. |
Arthur (USA)
30th May 2008 |
the figures speak for themselves, its up to the government charlatans and slaves to tell us why 400 billion is not an obscene amount to spend to be at the top of the worlds biggest killing machinery. |
William (Japan)
18th March 2008 |
To Longhorn and Victor:
Comparing nuclear arsenals and then talking about conquering or winning shows a regrettable lack of comprehension.
Mutual destruction is virtually assured, and there are no 'winners' or 'conquerors' in nuclear warfare, just the dead and the dying. |
Ben (HK)
23rd February 2008 |
SIPRI's military expenditure database (enter at: http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_database1.html) has the USA's 2006 spending at $546 billion.
Russia's spending is estimated at 1.1 trillion rubles. That's US$45 billion.
China's spending is 411 billion yuan. That's US$57 billion.
The UK's spending is 33.4 billion pounds. That's US$65.7 billion.
These figures are at current exchange rates not PPP (the dollar is pretty weak, which over-emphasises other countries' spending). PPP would probably be more telling as these countries procure much of their hardware domestically, and, as we all know, costs in the US and China are dramatically different. These figures are not adjusted for inflation, either. |
Dostum (Pakistan)
4th January 2008 |
my god whoever made this list sure doesn't no anything about military expenditure around the world. I can tell almost accurate military expenditure of the following countries:
US- more than half trillion dollars. (I no from the news i read everyday on yahoo)
Pakistan- more than 18 billion dollars (I'm from Pakistan and Pakistan spends 50 percent of its budget on military)
India- 20 billion dollars (not too sure but around 20 billion dollars)
China- 44 billion dollars or maybe more as in the news said.
these are the only countries that i m sure of except for India and the reason why i give this info b'cuz people make their own website and put inaccurate info and i think they just explore in few website and copies them |
Russell (Texas)
14th August 2007 |
Bill wrote, "United States citizens and NGO's collectively spend more per year on direct foreign aid than the citizens of any other country."
The problem is that much of that has no purpose other than religious outreach, and should no more be counted as aide or to the general benefit of people than should the House of Saud's funding of madrassas in various parts of the world. I discount most of the claims about the degree of private charity in the US, because most such claims do nothing to separate the charity from spending on missionaries, churches, and other entirely religious purposes. And yes, I know the same person who preaches also can dig a well. But if he spends 90% of his time preaching and 10% digging wells, it's an accounting error to count him as a full-time charitable worker. |
Bill (Washington)
13th August 2007 |
To Mr. Gealikman:
You may be correct about US GOVERNMENT spending. But United States citizens and NGO's collectively spend more per year on direct foreign aid than the citizens of any other country. It is convenient to criticize the US--but the disparity in foreign aid spending vs. military spending is merely a result of the centralization of military spending and the decentralization of foreign aid spending. Nobody buys a tank on their own, but plenty of people send their money to aid starvation around the world. There is plenty to find fault with in US foreign policy--its not necessary to create issues where there are none. |
Joe (Texas)
9th August 2007 |
Longhorn - you obviously have a severe lack of education, either that or you slept during school. |
Slocco (Iran)
29th July 2006 |
Damn, the gap between 1st and 2nd is enormous...I'm afraid of USA.
I pray to Allah that the USA doesn't take over Iran....oh! Allah! oh! |
ignaecious (zambia)
23rd June 2006 |
just so you know russia would probably be 3rd on this list and could easily be compared to the U.S when it comes down to strength and technology, and im from zambia and consistently travel to the United states and our military is not that far off from americas when i see the two of them, just much smaller, the U.S wont be the greatest for much longer |
DONALD ADY (http://www.airport-parking.uk.net/)
26th May 2006 |
i add your link please add my link in your site
Url http://www.airport-parking.uk.net/
resc http://www.airport-parking.uk.net/web/ca.htm
Title airport parking uk
Desc Find airport parking online here for UK customers. We can help you find a quality provider.
email donald.ady@gmail.com |
Jeff (United States)
2nd May 2006 |
Regarding CHINA:
China's expenditures involving "dollar figures" are an anomaly. The figure should be much higher by most any analyst's estimation. When a United States soldier gets paid over $500 a week, and a Chinese soldier makes about $600 a year, you can begin to see that the Chinese are actually pouring an astonishing amount of money into their military. Production and infrastructure costs are similarly misrepresented.
For example, to develop a destroyer warship may costs hundreds of milllions of dollars in the United States, but only a 20 or 30 million in China. Digging out bunkers for nuclear weapons, feeding the troops, all things that involve labor (and the military lives and breathes off of labor) are highly distorted when you assume that $1 US will buy you the same thing in the United States that it will buy you in China.
Attempts to normalise China's spending into something that can be compared are difficult, but the research is out there. I think China needs a few footnotes, for better clarification. |
mr. man
5th December 2005 |
oh please, the US has the highest trained and most sophisticated weapons in the world. why should it not carve an empire out for itself. all previous world powers with the capability has done so, so why should the United States act any different? |
Jim
4th December 2005 |
Actually the Russians have the most dangerous ICBM force in the world. Even projected American defenses cannot defeat missiles that are coming out today.
I'm sure that the American military is overrated in it's abilities against a resolute opponent, like say, Iran? But even in that case their spending does reflect the fact that they are the world leader in tactical depth, and total technological power (even though only some of their armaments are the world's best), they have a great advantage in mechanization and numbers. |
Mike in Tokyo Rogers
2nd November 2005 |
"...in fiscal year 2004, through which we are passing currently, the grand total spent for defense will be approximately $695 billion. To this amount will have to be added the $58.8 billion allocated to fiscal year 2004 from the $87.5 billion supplemental spending authorized on November 6, 2003, for support of U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and for so-called reconstruction of those despoiled and occupied countries. Thus, the super-grand total in fiscal year 2004 will reach the astonishing amount of nearly $754 billion—or 88 percent more than the much-publicized $401.3 billion—plus, of course, any additional supplemental spending that may be approved before the end of the fiscal year."
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1253 |
Mark
9th October 2005 |
I have two points:
1. The 2006 US projected budget proposal for military expenditures is a whopping $540 billion.
2. The current military budget does NOT include money for Iraq and Afghanistan for the most part. The budget for them is independent of the military expenditures listed here. |
Rod
6th September 2005 |
It is misleading to compare the US with traditional conquering empires. In general, the last thing the Americans want to do is to occupy a foreign piece of real estate for an indefinite period of time, apart from a few strategically located military bases. Now, the Air Force and the Navy comes in: Tired of blokes like Noriega? Saddam?? Osama??? Bomb the living daylight out of them and send in the Marines. Strike and deploy fast ... the huge US military expenditure and force structure are geared up for overseas intervention. Of course, the US has nukes as well, the most capable in the world. |
Victor
2nd July 2005 |
To Longhorn: Certainly Russia still has the largest nuclear arsenal almost two times that of the US (about 12000 in the US against 22000 in Russia). And the destructive power (the sum of its warheads in kilotons) that its nuclear warheads carry is more than three times greater, so the US is not really in a position to conquer any large part of the world. |
arjun
30th June 2005 |
The U.S. has a population of 300 million. How do you think it'll takeover the world? It can't even takeout a terroist like Ossama Bin Ladden with it's hi tech gadgets. The goverment doesn't even have a large variety of climates to train it's troops. |
Kyle
17th June 2005 |
Kelvin, The US is a Hyper power and no one would stand a chance against it in a face off. Occupying a country is way different from blowing the shit out of it. |
Longhorn from TX
8th June 2005 |
To Kelvin:
Actually US has over 10,000 nuke warheads that can destroy the world many times over, so it's probably true that US can win against the entire world.
But as Iraq shows, U.S. can conquer the world, but it can't win the hearts and minds of the people. |
Kelvin
1st June 2005 |
To Darren: that's all BS. There are many factors to decide the outcome of a battle. The US Army may have the best equipment out there, but if you can't use it efficiently, it's just a piece of trash. As you mention yourself, that the US even have difficulties to take full control of a developing country like Iraq, forget about winning against the entire world as you said "the U.S. probably could win against the entire world". |
David
23rd May 2005 |
Hey, check this out I just calculated a plan that can help the US save more than 100 billion dollars!!!
and get tens of millions of people around the world out of poverty!!!
Insted of hiring lazy prodigal and spoiled american college teens and pay them 150,000$ for serving 3 years in the army plus hundreds of dollars every month and another 110,000 to their families if they die
we can train starving african and asian kids since theyr'e young which will save them from death, stop the poor population from rising, not have to listen to all that crap from families whose loved ones died in wars plus they will be more brutal and mercyless and more dedicated to serve and die. |
Darren
19th May 2005 |
According to current projections ... fiscal year 2005 will be the first year that the U.S. will outspend the rest of the world combined on military expenditures.
And while it doesn't have a complete connection to military power, it has a connection. In general the U.S. Navy would have about a 5/3 superiority over the rest of the world's Navies combined. So we can protect our trade routes and deploy our military force (power) anywhere we want. Our Airpower is better than the next 9 combined. So barring a major confluence of countries against America, America could expect air superiority within a matter of days in any conflict (even against Russia and China). Air superiority generally decides the outcome of any battle. But as Iraq has shown, it takes feet to keep what is won. So basically, against almost any group of militaries, in a conventional war, particularly on the defense, the U.S. probably could win against the entire world. But the U.S. just doesn't have the population to keep what they won. |
mike
8th May 2005 |
comparable in different categories..but as a whole its hard to compare any military to American......on individual categories such as quality, quantity, training of air force, navy, sf etc...but as a whole....its hard to compare one country to USA |
Todd
4th May 2005 |
Actually it's more than $420.17 billion, Check it at:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#USMilitarySpending |
Goodman
19th April 2005 |
Hi, I agree with Hans. This is a very good and informative site. It is specially good for those who have to complete class projects. But please update the data of all the catagories. |
14th April 2005 |
Although $400 billion is an enormous figure, we can't jump to the conclusion that this reflects American superiority in conventional arms, personnel, or total standing military force. We have to consider that much of America's expenditures were for readiness, fuel, and the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Many other nations have militaries more comparable with the United States than these figures show. |
Feeds |
Contact