The 'totally necessary' amount the US spends on Defense

321 points · 58 comments · view on lemmy.world

58 Comments

tal@lemmy.today · 41 pts · 308d (3 replies)

One thing to keep in mind is that defense spending tends to rely heavily on local provision. You generally can't just import soldiers, and keeping military-industrial supply chains local or at minimum trusted is also a requirement. So using something like a PPP-adjusted figure rather than a nominal figure is probably going to be closer to what you're actually buying, and that rather considerably diminishes the difference.

kagis for someone discussing the matter

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/chinas-military-rise-comparative-military-spending-china-and-us

Given current data, China’s military expenditure in PPP terms is estimated to be $541 billion, or 59% of US spending, and its equipment levels are only 42% of US levels. Comparing trends over time shows that the US has matched China in recent years, albeit at the cost of a much higher defence burden.

The underlying mechanism here is that China has a lot of people who will work for rather-lower wages than in the US, which means that each nominal dollar China budgets for their military can buy them more military capacity than in the US, via taking advantage of those lower wages.

If the US had a large supply of workers willing to work at Chinese wages, and could use them to drive its military and military-industrial system, that wouldn't be a factor.

ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 308d

China also owns their own resources while the US doesn’t so the US has to pay a middle man to build anything.

Fmstrat@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 308d

Also, this probably includes what the US sells.

_stranger_@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 308d
[ removed ]
Teppichbrand@feddit.org · 30 pts · 308d

1000007762

DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 308d (1 reply)

Isn't it "War Spending" now?

aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 306d
[ removed ]
Valmond@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 308d (14 replies)

Isn't the USA numbers very skewed because they include like healthcare and pensions in their numbers, even for former soldiers, while say europeans don't?

JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 9 pts · 308d (7 replies)

Also, (and I'm no kind of expert) it seems there's a lot of graft involved in the spending, such as $67 charged for a screw, and that kind of thing. A good bit of it due to a kickback-type arrangement between the politicians involved (think Dick Cheney) and the defense contractors who get awarded the deals.

_stranger_@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 308d (6 replies)

Some of those "$50 screw" numbers come from cancelling projects with high total cost. A contract might be paid to produce a thousand of something and get cancelled after making 10 of them, inflating the per unit cost by a ton

JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social · 6 pts · 308d (1 reply)

Thanks for the clarification. I was indeed just parroting what I'd heard & read several times, without really understanding the mechanisms involved.

_stranger_@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 308d

well, it's only some. Plus there's plenty of conspiracy theories around those types of costs being how the gov funds secret projects.

trolololol@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d (1 reply)

Well that still counts as stupid ways to waste money, with a side of corruption

_stranger_@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 307d

yep. plenty of money in defense wasted due to stupidity.

shalafi@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d

The Army manual says that screw must meet X, Y, and Z specs. If you don't have the tooling for those exact specs, you're going to charge more to make up the cost of retooling.

Of course there's grift and plain foolishness. Local base Commander paid a painter I knew to stop work for two weeks and screw around waiting for his commander to visit. Wanted the boss to see the painters in action, look busy.

Speaking of specs, there are old rules that never changed. Worked at a print shop where a standard 24x36" blueprint was $.63. Nope. Navy had to have the final set of plans printed on plastic media, $3/page. Now multiply by 150 for a modest set of prints.

shalafi@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 308d
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 307d (5 replies)

i think its a very small percentage, only 62billion goes to healthcare in the defense budget. half goes to defense contractors, which is huge.

Valmond@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 307d (4 replies)

I read it brings USA down under 3.5% of GDP but I'd love some better sources on that.

Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 307d (3 replies)

i was mentioning the 62billion out of the 900billion/year. its seems very small if you think about how many service members(enlisted and officers) + thier families.

Valmond@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 306d (2 replies)

Well that was the thing, they say defence contractors, but some of it goes to pensioins and healthcare.

Alaik@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 306d (1 reply)

2020-2024 over half of the military budget went to contractors. 54%.

https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/paper/profits-war-top-beneficiaries-pentagon-spending-2020-2024

Valmond@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 306d

Sources, nice!

So 46% can go to pensions or anything else.

MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 307d (2 replies)

Stop calling it defense.

bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 307d

The government did already

DupaCycki@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 306d

It's officially war spending now.

ripcord@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 308d

"War" spending, now.

Edit: I am slow

dellish@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 307d (1 reply)

Hold up. I see three NATO countries in that top-spending list, yet Trump is crying that they don't spend enough? It seems, as everyone seems to agree, that the problem is the US spends way too much. But since US "defense" spending is an obvious grift to shift public money to private pockets this isn't too surprising.

mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 306d

Well he wants to dial up the grift of shifting other nato members' public money into US MIC private pockets

individual@toast.ooo · 11 pts · 308d
[ removed ]
trolololol@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 308d

And most of it goes either into super inflated prices for the most silly things, or into projects that no one can talk about and are unsupervised.

Objection@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 308d

And it virtually only ever goes up. More and more of our labor is going towards feeding the imperial war machine, while social services are gutted. Our corrupt politicians just want to line the pockets of the corporations that make bombs, and they start conflicts around the globe to justify it. The primary function of the military is essentially money laundering, to channel public funds into private hands.

IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 308d (6 replies)

yet they still lost against the Taliban,

shame

ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 308d (2 replies)

More of a “tactical surrender” like every conflict they get into.

Objection@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 308d (1 reply)

That's called losing.

IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 307d

love those bs terms

"preemptive strike", yhea, that's a first strike and you just started a war.

"tactical surrender" losing

"strategic retreat" running away

"collateral" civilians

aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 306d
[ removed ]
Wahots@pawb.social · 1 pts · 307d (1 reply)

We don't really fight wars like the ancients did, which is a good thing. Back then, it was total war with either wholesale enslavement of the population, or killing whoever you could get your hands on, then salting all arable land to kill off whoever was left, and to ensure nobody could live there for centuries.

It was brutally effective and completely wiped entire civilizations off the map.

IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 307d

Why are you bringing ancient roman warfare?

By that logic the allies didn't win ww2?

The US military is machine designed to siphoning public tax fund towards shareholders pockets.

that's why it lost a 20 year war against the poorest people on the planet.

the was was lost, but the profit was amazing for the real winners. ie, shareholders.

ICastFist@programming.dev · 8 pts · 307d

Socialize (military) spending, vassalize smaller countries, privatize wealth, that's the american way of running businesses

MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 307d (1 reply)

2 Trillions that could have been invested in education, science and welfare instead.

aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 306d
[ removed ]
Alloi@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 307d

its "necessary" once you figure out that when people get tired of the complications caused by it, they are willing to use the military to quash discent on behalf of the elite class, to maintain control.

all i know is, i play warhammer total war 3 a lot. and when my skavens are starving and start an uprising, i just send a lord with his army to quash the discenters, and maintain control.

simple as.

thatradomguy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 308d (1 reply)

It's gonna be funny though when the aliens finally show up and obliterate the US without even trying. lmao

krooklochurm@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 307d

I mean.

I'm not sure the aliens will ever show up.

Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 307d (1 reply)

at least half goes to defense contractors.

Alaik@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 306d

Pretty sure its over half. Edit: Yup. 54% for years 2020-2024.

We have a welfare program for already rich corporations larger than most nations GDP.

ThrowawayInTheYear23@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 308d

If the VA was a military it would be in the top 5.

corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 308d (6 replies)

Y.S.K. some countries are bigger than others. Per capita or G.T.F.O.

Objection@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 308d (4 replies)

This is the weirdest justification to me. Military spending is for specific purposes. Like, if your hostile neighbor has twice the population as you and spends X dollars, then you don't spend 0.5 * X dollars. You're probably going to end up with higher spending per capita in order to reach parity. So why on earth would we compare by capita?

ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 308d (3 replies)

Building all my bombs in the Vatican so I get that high per capita ratio

Echofox@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 307d

So which is it. Stellaris, Hearts of Iron, or Crusader Kings?

MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 307d

Make sure to baptise them so you get holy hand grenades

Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 308d

Good post 👏

m4xie@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 308d

Percentage of GSP would also be a relevant figure

twopi@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 308d

Peter G. Peterson

The most "Booty McBootface" type white name I've seen.

Adderbox76@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 307d

Depends on how you define "necessary".

More than actual use, the American military is about "implied threat"

"Do as we say, or else".

Its always been that way. Without the implied threat, the other world leaders would have told cheetolini to pound sand on day one.

shalafi@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d (1 reply)

Most of that money stays in the country. If we shut down the tiny helicopter training base by my house, it would crush the local economy.

SirActionSack@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 307d

This must be the most 1984 thing I've read all week.

Fleur_@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 307d

Winning

bagsy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 308d

When you hate and fear everyone, this is what you spend your money on.

DupaCycki@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 306d

Who knows how much of that money is completely wasted. Remember pizzas for $500 USD, or whatever the exact price was?

captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 308d

I'm surprised Japan is at #9, I would've expected Sweden or Finland above them

Donkter@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 306d

I think it's a somewhat credible theory I've heard that a large portion of our "defense" spending goes towards larger and larger bribes to countries around the world either to not go to war or to maintain trade relations with the United States in order to maintain U.S. hegemony.

banazir@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 308d
[ removed ]