Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why does America have such a high defence budget compared to other nations? Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It's the dominant superpower, It needs a big stick to swing around.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    At least you probided a link.
    Using that comparison is pretty meaningless and gives a pretty distorted view.

    Hence looking at the $ amount. because that is one way of reflecting how many ships, planes and tanks and the quality of them that they can deploy. I hardly think they are qyaking in their boots over S Sudan.
    why would i make up easily verifiable figures?

    theres a slight flw in your logic here's a scenario;
    1000 untrained soldiers armed with kalashnikovs and walked to battle cost someone 100,000 to arm and cloth and send to fight whilst 20 highly trained men with the latest rifles and tech and air dropped in cost half a million. Who would win in an open contest?
    Here's a clue odds doesnt favour the 20 no matter howmuch money you throw at them.
    Large and/or cheaper armies have a proven track record of beating the odds e.g. China, USSR, Vietnam, Zulus, Korea, Finland and to be honest the list goes on each one of them be it larger or cheaper has beaten a better funded and/or larger army.

    Considering the Taliban have America on the back foot, they were beaten in Somalia, their proxy in cuba andnumerous other states.. I rest my case m'lud
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Napp)
    why would i make up easily verifiable figures?

    theres a slight flw in your logic here's a scenario;
    1000 untrained soldiers armed with kalashnikovs and walked to battle cost someone 100,000 to arm and cloth and send to fight whilst 20 highly trained men with the latest rifles and tech and air dropped in cost half a million. Who would win in an open contest?
    Here's a clue odds doesnt favour the 20 no matter howmuch money you throw at them.
    Large and/or cheaper armies have a proven track record of beating the odds e.g. China, USSR, Vietnam, Zulus, Korea, Finland and to be honest the list goes on each one of them be it larger or cheaper has beaten a better funded and/or larger army.

    Considering the Taliban have America on the back foot, they were beaten in Somalia, their proxy in cuba andnumerous other states.. I rest my case m'lud
    I never said you made them up. I credited you with providing a link.

    The question was why does the US have such a high defence budget. To follow your thoery then countries with the highest popuklations would be the world superpowers. You used the relative budget spend of a country, which was and still is misleading and relatively meaningless.

    If you take your scenario of 1000 men armed with kalashnikovs, then you make the poor comparison of 20 men on the ground because ofc they dont do that, but instead use 20 attack helicopters, jets or drones.

    Your exmaples are not the US fighting at full military strength. Its possible for a numerically superior and more poorly equpped enemy to win, but the reason the US withdraws from conflicts is the wests inabiliyu to take casualyies due to the effect on public opinion.

    Your case is poor.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    I never said you made them up. I credited you with providing a link.

    The question was why does the US have such a high defence budget. To follow your thoery then countries with the highest popuklations would be the world superpowers. You used the relative budget spend of a country, which was and still is misleading and relatively meaningless.

    If you take your scenario of 1000 men armed with kalashnikovs, then you make the poor comparison of 20 men on the ground because ofc they dont do that, but instead use 20 attack helicopters, jets or drones.

    Your exmaples are not the US fighting at full military strength. Its possible for a numerically superior and more poorly equpped enemy to win, but the reason the US withdraws from conflicts is the wests inabiliyu to take casualyies due to the effect on public opinion.

    Your case is poor.
    Technology is far more important than population, the UK, France, or America could probably win against most of the world combined, or at least hold their own, because while the forces are numerically smaller, and population way smaller, the systems being used are far more advanced and training is much better. Hell, our Falklands defense forces should be able to defend the Island from a united South American force; a ship boat and a few planes vs hundreds of thousands of men

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    I never said you made them up. I credited you with providing a link.

    The question was why does the US have such a high defence budget. To follow your thoery then countries with the highest popuklations would be the world superpowers. You used the relative budget spend of a country, which was and still is misleading and relatively meaningless.

    If you take your scenario of 1000 men armed with kalashnikovs, then you make the poor comparison of 20 men on the ground because ofc they dont do that, but instead use 20 attack helicopters, jets or drones.

    Your exmaples are not the US fighting at full military strength. Its possible for a numerically superior and more poorly equpped enemy to win, but the reason the US withdraws from conflicts is the wests inabiliyu to take casualyies due to the effect on public opinion.

    Your case is poor.
    I used that as one point for a point of view i then qualified it of reasons why America has a substantial budget and what it goes on unlike you who gave rather mundane and erronous answers e.g. 'because its large' what crap size is no indication of amount spent lest places like Russia/Canada/Australia etc. be forking out a lot more than they say. 'because they have a large army' so why isnt China, DPRK, India, Bangladesh etc. paying hundreds of billions to their armed forces?
    Your reasons are completely flawed seeing as you're too lazy to qualify or back up your points.
    Now that is just stupid, several hundred million/billion in air power that doesnt need to be less than a few miles away is stupid.
    Errr I think you'll find that goes with any war, any force that has a high enough wastage rate will surrender, i know of absolutely none that wont.
    Hmm okay then what about malaysia plenty of casulties there but the british pressed on, in ww1 and ww2 the allies pressed on and so on.
    In fact i cant think of one correct point you've made?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Napp)
    I used that as one point for a point of view i then qualified it of reasons why America has a substantial budget and what it goes on unlike you who gave rather mundane and erronous answers e.g. 'because its large' what crap size is no indication of amount spent lest places like Russia/Canada/Australia etc. be forking out a lot more than they say. 'because they have a large army' so why isnt China, DPRK, India, Bangladesh etc. paying hundreds of billions to their armed forces?
    Your reasons are completely flawed seeing as you're too lazy to qualify or back up your points.
    Now that is just stupid, several hundred million/billion in air power that doesnt need to be less than a few miles away is stupid.
    Errr I think you'll find that goes with any war, any force that has a high enough wastage rate will surrender, i know of absolutely none that wont.
    Hmm okay then what about malaysia plenty of casulties there but the british pressed on, in ww1 and ww2 the allies pressed on and so on.
    In fact i cant think of one correct point you've made?

    The fact America has over 300m people is indicative of it having a larger military budget than a country like the UK, which is 60 million people. It was only one aspect and is a perfectly reasonable point to make when the OP was asking why their spend was so large in $. More people means a bigger budget all things being equal. Idiotic to suggest otherwise.

    Then i suggested other factors, such as it being a developed nation and rich, which increases its capacity to spend more.

    Then I pointed out that they have expensive technology, which funnily enough costs more.

    Then I pointed out that their military costs more because they pay their armed forces more per soldier rather than the salary of your average pakistani , chinese or bangladeshi..

    So in contrast to your examples. Some of them arent as large, but they dont pay their triips high salaries, arent as well trained and dont have as siphisticated weaponry. they also dont carry out the role of a global superpower. the ppp ratio posted earlier was a much more representative analytic.

    Amazing you cnat see why the US military costs so much. 4.5% of the US GDP is going to get you further in $ than 10% of your South Sudan, but you keep on telling yourself otherwise. Yes i can see all those points are really flawed as to why the US has the largest military budget in the world..... really.

    List by the International Institute for Strategic StudiesTop 15 Defence Budgets 2015[3] Rank Country Spending ($bn)
    RankCountrySpending
    ($ Bn.)
    1 United States597.5
    2 China145.8
    3 Saudi Arabia81.8
    4 Russia66.5
    5 United Kingdom56.2
    6 India48.0
    7 France46.8
    8 Japan41.0
    9 Germany36.7
    10 South Korea33.5
    11 Brazil24.3
    12 Australia22.8
    13 Italy21.6
    14 Iraq21.1
    15 Israel18.6


    Per capita spendingRankCountryAmount in USD$
    1 Saudi Arabia6,909[6]
    2 Singapore2,385
    3 Israel1,882
    4 United States1,859
    5 Kuwait1,289
    6 Norway1,245
    7 Greece1,230
    8 United Kingdom1,066
    9 France977
    10 Bahrain912
    11 Australia893
    12 Brunei866
    13 Luxembourg809
    14 Denmark804
    15 Netherlands759

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ure_per_capita
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    The fact America has over 300m people is indicative of it having a larger militray budget than a country like the UK, which is 60 million people. It was only one aspect and is a perfectly reasonable point to make when the OP was asking why their spend was so large in $. More people means a bigger budget all things being equal. Idiotic to suggest otherwise.

    Then i suggested other factors, such as it being a developed nation and rich, which increases its capacity to spend more.

    Then I pointed out that they have expensive technology, which funnily enough costs more.

    Then I pointed out that their military costs more because they pay their armed forces more per soldier rather than the salary of your average pakistani , chinese or bangladeshi..

    So in contrast to your examples. Some of them arent as large, but they dont pay their triips high salaries, arent as well trained and dont have as siphisticated weaponry. they also dont carry out the role of a global superpower. the ppp ratio posted earlier was a much more representative analytic.

    Amazing you cnat see why the US military costs so much. 4.5% of the US GDP is going to get you further in $ than 10% of your South Sudan, but you keep on telling yourself otherwise.
    Are you blind or being intentionially dense? I offered that one point as little more than a tit-bit from another point of view, which is perfectly true. going along the lines of spending as a percent of GDP it is 11.
    However the question was then answered in terms of the dollar tag, far more thoroughly than you did.

    Yes very drole except i know those reasons and mentioned them lready :rolleyes: do keep up.

    Yes, what is your point? Relatively they're paid little more than other armies pay theirs factoring in living costs in the U.S. they do however draw pensions, benefits and health care which arent counted as a wage and which puts up the bill immeasurably.

    Who says everyone elses troops are sloppily trained? Mmhmm Well I can name several countries that keep highly advanced weaponry and large forces too.

    Yes thats nice except I didnt use the arguement you seen to think I did?

    You really are a deluded little fellow, READ MY ORIGINAL POST and stop wildly making up these **** and bull stories that I not once said.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    Hardly keeping up If I posted the reasons some time before you. You seem to have invented time travel , how convenient.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Hardly keeping up If I posted the reasons some time before you. You seem to have invented time travel , how convenient.
    You're not very good at English are you? Keep up in that context evidently is refering to me having already mentioned them as you know and I know. I'm not sure if youre smart but acting the imbecile to try and seem witty and failing with those odd little jabs or if you actually havent bothered reading anything and are indeed lacking in this area?

    And why have you posted the wiki article?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    Source:
    http://www.globalfirepower.com/defen...ing-budget.asp

    Just look at how much they spent last year!
    Is America up to something?

    Just try add all the other nations budgets together and you can't beat USA's.
    Erm hate to break it to you but they have done this for the last half century if they have been up to something they have already done it.

    Lol


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Almost all the money America has got its got for free. The US dollar is an oil based currency. Saudia Arabia and other oil producing countries including the UK accepts paper dollars for its oil. The paper dollars are worthless in themselves just like all other fiat currencies but by being freely exchangeable for the world's most important commodity, it attains value.

    So Saudia Arabia produces oil, America prints worthless paper dollars that is exchangeable for oil, the dollar attains value and the US can spend as many dollars as it likes because it does not actually cost them anything.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.