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).

 

[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.