Increased Military Expenditure

[matthew22081991]

Saw this and thought folks here might find it interesting:

BBC News - World military spending soars in spite of recession

I'm surprised to see how the UK's expenditure is higher than Russia's! I think perhaps more careful spending of all the money could see the UK sort it's armed forces out into an extremely powerful force.

What do we think, continued growth or eventual decline? Is there an increased risk of conflict with the increasing expenditure?

 

[StevoJH]

I'm surprised to see how the UK's expenditure is higher than Russia's!

Its been higher then Russia's for probably about the last twenty years.

 

[ahfukor]

Its been higher then Russia's for probably about the last twenty years.

As there is a lot of upgrade works in British Naval such as the construction of Newly aircraft-carrier, that why British armament expnditure is higher than Russia curretnly

 

[ambrose]

Again let us never lose sight that democracies have spent and spend less than dictatorships in defence relative to GDP.

 

[DanekerA]

Thanks for pointing out this BBC article. It is a bit of an eye opener and I hope that people stop and think about the "why?" and not just the dollar figures.
First of all, I am not an economist and I am definitely not a contractor. I'm just an Army officer who has been deployed two times to the Balkans, once to GTMO, and twice to Iraq. I do agree with the point about larger nations not wanting to cut defense budgets in order to combat the recession and keep people working. If those employees were not serving a purpose and building widgets that the military didn't need then I would agree to cut programs. But as a nation fighting a Long War, the US military needs equipment, support, and administrative services. (I would argue that these employees are, however, seriously overpaid, but that's a different blog!)
As I was reading this article and came across the paragraph about how countries in Eastern and Central Europe are spending far less than the named powers that have spent more and more over the past 10 years or so, despite rising recessions, deficits, unemployment, etc. I couldn't help but say "well, duh". I would imagine that many other nations across the globe also have cut their spending or it has remained on an even level for 10 years with little or no increase in expenditure.
Let's first look past the need for bigger nations to have bigger defense budgets. It takes a lot of money to defend a nation's geographic borders. For the US, that also means the Border Patrol and the National Guard.
But, in all honesty, when smaller nations are threatened they don't rely solely on their own armed forces for defense. They look to NATO, the EU, the UN...somebody with the military power to help them defend their interests and their borders. And most of the nations in the list of those countries that are spending more at the nations that are looked to for assistance.
I've spent a lot of time working side-by-side with NATO and UN allies in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait/Iraq. That that time spent working side-by-side with peers from other nation's militaries is the most rewarding and educating part of my 20-year career. But I also know that it was the US that poured larger amounts of money into the missions, from bigger and better base camps, to better equipment for defensive and offensive operations, to MWR (yes, Burger King and Green Beans), to the monster AAFES tents that pop up almost immediately when US troops arrive. Other nations certainly spend money on all of these, but it's the US that usually spends more. Maybe some of it's over indulgence and not necessary, but that's the way we do it.
MAJ Annmarie Daneker
Student, ILE Class 10-002
Ft. Lee, Virginia
Please note that the views expressed in this blog are those of the author/student and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.

 

[SASWanabe]

the US military needs equipment, support, and administrative services. (I would argue that these employees are, however, seriously overpaid, but that's a different blog!)

wait, did you just use the words US Military and overpaid in the same sentence???

[Mod Edit: usachemo and SASWanabe are reminded that you are required to read the Forum Rules - > http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php before posting again.

(i) Prior post by usachemo without comment has been deleted.

(ii) SASWanabe, kindly note that one liners are also a violation of DT forum rules.​

While we encourage new members to participate, please note that the Mod team also frowns on links without commentary and do not allow one-liner replies. SASWanabe your posts are being watched by the Mod team. This is your third post that I have had to moderate. You need to rethink your approach to participating in DT. If you post, be prepared to discuss or explain your point of view. We would like to see you develop an in-depth interest in defence related discussions, rather than fluffing your posts to increase your post count. The rules are here for a reason, read them.]

 

[Todjaeger]

wait, did you just use the words US Military and overpaid in the same sentence???

The US, like Australia, has a bureaucracy that handles administration, support, R&D, etc. The people involved are a mix of civilians and uniformed personnel, many of them located within the greater Washington, D.C. area and working within the Pentagon. While I do not know if the person in question was referring to the pay of some of those involved, and/or the number of administrative staff involved, I can readily believe that some of those people, whether civil service of political appointees are "excess" to the needs of the service.

Then again, the whole US governmental bureaucracy has some deadwood that could probably do with trimming. Just like any other bureaucracy for that matter, as I have yet to encounter one which could be accurately described as efficient.

-Cheers

 

[OPSSG]

Thanks for pointing out this BBC article. It is a bit of an eye opener and I hope that people stop and think about the "why?" and not just the dollar figures.

First of all, a warm welcome to joining us on DT.

Second, please note that the basis of that BBC article is data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and there is an existing DT thread on that topic. Feel fee to have a look at the linked thread which deals with SIPRI data in greater detail than main stream news.

But, in all honesty, when smaller nations are threatened they don't rely solely on their own armed forces for defense. They look to NATO, the EU, the UN...somebody with the military power to help them defend their interests and their borders. And most of the nations in the list of those countries that are spending more at the nations that are looked to for assistance.

Yes, but the issues that European nations face is quite different from the security dynamics (and the inherent security dilemma) in various regions, such as, that found in South Asia, East Asia, South East Asia, the Middle East and so on. The UN as an organisation reflects the strengths and weaknesses of the Security Council and it's member states and as an organization, it does not have the military capability to stop an act of external aggression against a member state.

With regards to South East Asia, please read up on why SEATO failed and why ASEAN exists - so as to move beyond an US/Euro-centric world view. Once you gain a greater insight on why some US created organizations fail, perhaps you can then understand the limits of US power and credibility in certain regions of the world. I would go so far as to suggest that in some cases, there is limited willingness for some nations to enter into alliance relationship (and opting for a quasi-alliance relationship) with external powers. Here's a backgrounder on the South China Sea (with even more links) but the issue is not just China's claims in relation to maritime boundaries and the associated rights under the relevant convention, there are also competing EEZ claims and boundary disputes amongst some ASEAN states too (including naval standoffs). Individual ASEAN member states are not only voicing their concerns, but also taking more concrete actions, including strengthening their naval capabilities. In 2009 Malaysia took delivery of two Scorpene-class submarines, while reports suggest that Vietnam placed an order for 6 Kilo-class submarines. Further, the Malaysian Chinese language press have reported that on 29 April 2010 the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) had intercepted PRC fishery vessels in the waters around Layang-Layang Island (which is claimed by Malaysia). Quoted below is part of a Defense News interview with Teo Chee Hean:

Q. How worried are you about China's transparency, or lack of it?

A. What is important is that there is continued engagement and discussion. So if you look at forums like the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, they bring together the defense and security community of the Asia-Pacific, including the United States and China. I think these are useful because then you can look at where each other is coming from and begin to understand what the other person is thinking and why. And we hope that with such open discussions and sharing of views that we will be able to identify shared interests and work to develop them; identify potential areas where there continue to be differences, and hope that these differences can be managed and not become points of conflict.


Q. Should the U.S. Navy visit more ports and participate in more joint exercises with Singapore and others?

A. Many countries in Southeast Asia, not just Singapore, do welcome the U.S. presence, even though they might not vocalize it, and encourage interactions and visits from the United States.


Q. What are Singapore's security concerns?

A. In the medium term, the priority is to try and construct a broader regional architecture which encompasses everything, but more specifically, a regional architecture for security, which will provide an underpinning for constructive relationships to allow the whole region to prosper.

On terrorism, my own view is that countries in the region have been successful in dealing with individuals and small individual groups that have conducted acts of terrorism. But worldwide, not just in Southeast Asia, there is still a need for engagement with the wider Muslim community, which is committed to peace, security and development, and see how we can work together so that the voice of this larger Muslim community is not drowned out by the voices and violent acts of a small minority.


Q. As a majority-Chinese nation based on western principles, does Singapore have a unique role to play between China and the West?

A. We are a very small country, so we know our limitations. What we try to do is work with our ASEAN friends because I think ASEAN amplifies the voice and the influence of all the Southeast Asian countries; any of us on our own would really be much smaller and have a more insignificant voice.

ASEAN is a collective and we can continue in a number of positive ways. We provide a neutral meeting ground where we can bring all the major powers, the United States, India, China and others, around the same table and encourage them to have a constructive discussion with each other and identify common interests.

The other important aspect of ASEAN is that, by being able to work together and keep ASEAN peaceful and cohesive, that is a major contribution to the security of the Asia-Pacific because through the ASEAN region run major sea routes, sources of energy and natural resources, markets and so forth.


Q. Can ASEAN mediate or solve regional challenges, such as territorial disputes?

A. Some of these issues, particularly territorial issues, are very intractable, so to say that ASEAN will be able to solve them in some short time frame is probably putting a high demand on ASEAN. But I think what we have been able to do is create an environment where countries are encouraged to behave in a way where these competing claims don't erupt into conflict. Once it erupts into conflict, it becomes almost insoluble.

...

 

[Chino]

Could salaries be one of the factor why UK spends more?

Russia, AIUI still uses conscription and even their professional soldiersdon't get paid as much. And the foot soldiers get issued cheap equipment?

 

[T.C.P]

In a lot of websites its written that the released Russian and Chinese defence expenditures are not totally tranparent. The IISS estimates Russian def. Exp to be much higher than the onr they released.

 

[Chino]

In a lot of websites its written that the released Russian and Chinese defence expenditures are not totally tranparent. The IISS estimates Russian def. Exp to be much higher than the onr they released.

True!

IMO, expecting countries to be truly transparent about their defence matters is a bit unrealistic.

One of the best defence is to deceive your (potential) enemy or at least keep them guessing.

 

[ramirezr]

After reading the article, I have to agree with some world leaders decision to maintain and even increase military spending. For some nations not only does it keep a portion of their population employed but most importantly it allows them to maintain a viable fighting force. In the US case, it is not a secret that military spending is imperative. We are fighting two wars that require resources, supplies, and equipment. Curtailing spending will only hinder our mission.

I do caution all nations on unnecessary spending, waste, and abuse of funds that do not support their overall vision for keeping their nation safe.


MAJ Rosa Ramirez
Student, Command and General Staff College
US Army Combined Arms Center
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

The views expressed in this blog are tose of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

 

[tphuang]

Could salaries be one of the factor why UK spends more?

Russia, AIUI still uses conscription and even their professional soldiersdon't get paid as much. And the foot soldiers get issued cheap equipment?

hmm, maybe the way to go is to freeze soldiers salaries. Everyone else in the world are going through salary freezes, it should happen to militaries too. Also, there is no inflation in the world market right now. So as a corollary, there is no reason for military purchases to increase in cost either. If military industries are still asking for price increases, then just tell them to stop bowing down to the union workers.

First of all, a warm welcome to joining us on DT.

Second, please note that the basis of that BBC article is data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and there is an existing DT thread on that topic. Feel fee to have a look at the linked thread which deals with SIPRI data in greater detail than main stream news.



Yes, but the issues that European nations face is quite different from the security dynamics (and the inherent security dilemma) in various regions, such as, that found in South Asia, East Asia, South East Asia, the Middle East and so on. The UN as an organisation reflects the strengths and weaknesses of the Security Council and it's member states and as an organization, it does not have the military capability to stop an act of external aggression against a member state.

With regards to South East Asia, please read up on why SEATO failed and why ASEAN exists - so as to move beyond an US/Euro-centric world view. Once you gain a greater insight on why some US created organizations fail, perhaps you can then understand the limits of US power and credibility in certain regions of the world. I would go so far as to suggest that in some cases, there is limited willingness for some nations to enter into alliance relationship (and opting for a quasi-alliance relationship) with external powers. Here's a backgrounder on the South China Sea (with even more links) but the issue is not just China's claims in relation to maritime boundaries and the associated rights under the relevant convention, there are also competing EEZ claims and boundary disputes amongst some ASEAN states too (including naval standoffs). Individual ASEAN member states are not only voicing their concerns, but also taking more concrete actions, including strengthening their naval capabilities. In 2009 Malaysia took delivery of two Scorpene-class submarines, while reports suggest that Vietnam placed an order for 6 Kilo-class submarines. Further, the Malaysian Chinese language press have reported that on 29 April 2010 the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) had intercepted PRC fishery vessels in the waters around Layang-Layang Island (which is claimed by Malaysia). Quoted below is part of a Defense News interview with Teo Chee Hean:

There are definitely military reasons for every country to increase their budget. But at certain point, you have to accept the reality of your fiscal situation and not spend more than you can afford. I'm not saying this against ASEAN countries, but gov't around the world.