COMMENTS:
Among those who spend a higher percentage of their nation's income on the military: China, Turkey, Libera, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Those five nations spend anywhere from 4.3% (China) to 10% (Saudi Arabia) of their income on military expenses. This is compared to 4.06% for the United States.
I should have said "a higher percentage" rather than "per capita."
Sorry about that.
That's ok I forgive you.
No need to apologise, we all make mistakes, as the dalek said climbing off the trash can.
Lol. Daleks...where would we be without them.
I'm guessing five -- North Korea and China likely do. Of course I don't know due to the "per capita" stipulation. There may be several third-world countries that fit into this category.
It's all relative though. You can't compare those figures. The United States stills spends more than any nation and in fact, I belive our total military spending is more than the EU, China and Russia combined. I see your point, but no nation spends close to half a $Trillion per year like we do. We are still spending about $1,500 for every single person in the country. Thats a lot.
I'm surprised I didn't think of Israel.
"The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has revealed in a detailed report that the total military spending across the world in 2004 reached 1.035 trillion dollars in 2004 up from 956 billion dollars during the previous year.
It added that Washington alone outspent the entire developing world in military goods, accounting for 47 per cent of the worldwide figure."
"As part of a continued defense buildup, US President George W. Bush proposed a sizable 4.2 percent increase in military spending for 2004 in the federal budget he sent to Congress on Monday.
The USA's planned total national defense expenditure will rise to almost $400 billion next year and is projected to grow by a further 25% by the end of the decade, as the military pushes ahead with its transformation in capabilities and organization.
Combined with the 11 percent boost in the current year, the proposed increase is the biggest defense buildup since former President Ronald Reagan's in the 1980s."
Thats what I meant by all relative. If one nation is accounting for 47% of the ENTIRE amount spent by every single nation, that's pretty alarming.
The military discovered that the disastrous cutbacks done by the Clinton administration were incredibly damaging, as did the intelligence agencies of the USA, contributing greatly to the inability to accurately predict 9/11, sad really. So now of course you are going to see a buildup again.
"Thats what I meant by all relative. If one nation is accounting for 47% of the ENTIRE amount spent by every single nation, that's pretty alarming."
Who normally handles the bulk of the United Nations military assignment do you think? And does the UN every pay the United States back for whatever assistance they receive? Not really, in fact, most often you see really ignorant people blaming the United States for actions that were, in fact, the United Nations, using the United States military as their enabler. No, I don't see a strong military as being a problem at all. You are also looking at this in the wrong way, the United States is currently on the top in terms of military ability and intends to stay that way. You don't stay on top by resting on your laurels, you continue to build new weapons, you continue research, and you make progress towards the future.
That's how things work. Sure, those who are anti war will scream bloody murder about it, but the plain fact remains, without a strong military, those who are anti war wouldn't have the ability to voice their opinion to BE anti war.
Thats so dumb the united states should start caring about whats happening in our country not outside. Bush rarely talks about stuff like the increasing poverty level or increase in illegal immigration. I understand we play a role in helping the world but man our own country is getting ruined.
|
