Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2008-03-04 12:30:52
geNius
..!.,
+144|6467|SoCal

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Top spenders on defense, according to percent of GDP


1     North Korea     22.90     2003 est.
2     Oman     11.40     2005 est.
3     Qatar     10.00     2005 est.
4     Saudi Arabia     10.00     2005 est.
5     Iraq     8.60     2006
6     Jordan     8.60     2006
7     Israel     7.30     2006
8     Yemen     6.60     2006
9     Armenia     6.50     2001
10     Eritrea     6.30     2006 est.
11     Burundi     5.90     2006 est.
12     Syria     5.90     2005 est.
13     Angola     5.70     2006
14     Mauritania     5.50     2006
15     Maldives     5.50     2005 est.
This is more of a concern to me.

I couldn't care less about the big man that could damage me if he wanted.  I'm worried about the little man that feverishly spends his resources to better his odds against me.

Last edited by geNius (2008-03-04 12:36:04)

https://srejects.com/genius/srejects.png
2008-03-04 12:59:55
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6412
Part of the reason between the huge differences in spending is the fact that everything is gonna be cheaper over there.



Talking about AST weapons, take out our GPS satellites and our Ohio class subs are useless, there goes about a 1/3 (I think) if our first strike capability, not to mention totally fucking over just about everything else.

Last edited by Commie Killer (2008-03-04 13:02:34)

2008-03-04 13:02:17
PluggedValve
Member
+17|6365

sergeriver wrote:

Venezuela only 4bn mmmm?
And the US (pardon me, BUSH) thinks Venezuala is a threat. LOLZ.

The old saying "do as i say, not as i do"
2008-03-04 13:06:26
PluggedValve
Member
+17|6365

FEOS wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

They spend a lot more than their published military budget...not that they come close to the US's spending.  I doubt that their payroll is nearly as large as ours, which is where quite a bit of the US budget goes.
Payroll and retirement benefits. The majority of our budget is manpower expenses.
Aren't there alot of ex-soldiers NOT getting paid their pensions for various BS reasons??
2008-03-04 13:07:26
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6412

PluggedValve wrote:

FEOS wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

They spend a lot more than their published military budget...not that they come close to the US's spending.  I doubt that their payroll is nearly as large as ours, which is where quite a bit of the US budget goes.
Payroll and retirement benefits. The majority of our budget is manpower expenses.
Aren't there alot of ex-soldiers NOT getting paid their pensions for various BS reasons??
Source?

EDIT: Valid source?

Last edited by Commie Killer (2008-03-04 13:07:40)

2008-03-04 13:10:03
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6471|The Land of Scott Walker
China can play too, as long as they keep their ball in their own yard.
2008-03-04 13:16:14
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6178|what

I'd like to see an new space race. That actually has the potential to better mankind. An arms race doesn't.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2008-03-04 13:21:19
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6436|'Murka

PluggedValve wrote:

FEOS wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

They spend a lot more than their published military budget...not that they come close to the US's spending.  I doubt that their payroll is nearly as large as ours, which is where quite a bit of the US budget goes.
Payroll and retirement benefits. The majority of our budget is manpower expenses.
Aren't there alot of ex-soldiers NOT getting paid their pensions for various BS reasons??
No.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-03-04 13:23:44
jason85
Banned
+58|6022|Mesa, AZ

PluggedValve wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Venezuela only 4bn mmmm?
And the US (pardon me, BUSH) thinks Venezuala is a threat. LOLZ.

The old saying "do as i say, not as i do"
I don't really think he means they are a military threat. More of a threat economically and idealistically. If Venezuela was really stupid and picked a fight with the US, I'd put my money on the US.
2008-03-04 13:55:05
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6479|The Twilight Zone

Mek-Izzle wrote:

Why would the US release a report criticizing that, when they spend probably twice that amount.
lol so true
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
2008-03-04 19:39:23
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6740|US

RoosterCantrell wrote:

There is no more room hre on Earth.  IF nations would just evolve beyond paranoia and imperialism, maybe we could work TOGETHER with all that money, and as a global alliance, actually move beyond earth. 

In this era, this timeframe, it is technically possible to actually colonize other planets.  I don't understand why this isn't a HUGE HUGE issue.

We are squabbling over slivers of land here on earth.  Sure it's costly to get off this rock, but so is war and military spending.

Seriously, the human race needs to grow the fuck up.
To paraphrase Tolkien, men desire power above all else. 

We could colonize Mars, but it would be EXTREMELY costly and inefficient, as we do not know exactly what it takes to successfully teraform a planet...yet.  Think about how much it costs to run the ISS, then multiply that by 1000.

In the short term, it is much more efficient to develop ways to live on earth via reduced footprints.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-03-04 19:40:52)

2008-03-04 21:37:15
The#1Spot
Member
+105|6565|byah

RoosterCantrell wrote:

There is no more room hre on Earth.  IF nations would just evolve beyond paranoia and imperialism, maybe we could work TOGETHER with all that money, and as a global alliance, actually move beyond earth. 

In this era, this timeframe, it is technically possible to actually colonize other planets.  I don't understand why this isn't a HUGE HUGE issue.

We are squabbling over slivers of land here on earth.  Sure it's costly to get off this rock, but so is war and military spending.

Seriously, the human race needs to grow the fuck up.
Venus is a very poisonous planet and mars has virtually nothing on it. If anything we will just make taller buildings.
2008-03-04 22:22:33
GodFather
Blademaster's bottom bitch
+387|6245|Phoenix, AZ

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

imagine having a spare 1,200 billion to go towards developing 3rd world countries...
If the world put all military spending to hard cash (assuming the world population is exactly 6,000,000,000) we could give EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD 2,000
2008-03-04 22:43:40
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6405|MN

GodFather wrote:

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

imagine having a spare 1,200 billion to go towards developing 3rd world countries...
If the world put all military spending to hard cash (assuming the world population is exactly 6,000,000,000) we could give EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD 2,000
But then they would buy a gun and kill their neighbor and take his 2,000.  His next door neighbor would buy a gun and they would start shooting at each other, then a group of them would get together and battle another group.  Eventually they would each "donate" a sum of money to put together a security patrol to protect them...etc.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2008-03-04 22:52:35
mikkel
Member
+383|6627

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

US: 4.06% GDP
PRC: 4.3% GDP

Use figures that are comparable.
US             U$D 2,000 per capita
PRC           U$S 50 per capita
So you're suggesting that population, rather than gross domestic product, determines the purchasing power of a nation?
2008-03-04 22:58:08
some_random_panda
Flamesuit essential
+454|6416

mikkel wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

US: 4.06% GDP
PRC: 4.3% GDP

Use figures that are comparable.
US             U$D 2,000 per capita
PRC           U$S 50 per capita
So you're suggesting that population, rather than gross domestic product, determines the purchasing power of a nation?
I think he's suggesting that America spends $1950 more "defending" each person than China.  What's purchasing power got to do with it?

Last edited by some_random_panda (2008-03-04 22:59:04)

2008-03-04 23:14:18
liquix
Member
+51|6479|Peoples Republic of Portland
as an american, i wouldn't be worried of a war vs china. Would you shoot a gift horse in the mouth?

China's ridiculous growth is tied to US consumption of Chinese goods, so if they decided to attack they would be placing their economy in jeopardy...and subsequently their war machine.

Fret not, fret not.

Worry instead about our failing economy and the current war we are fighting.
2008-03-04 23:16:40
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6479|The Twilight Zone

geNius wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Top spenders on defense, according to percent of GDP


1     North Korea     22.90     2003 est.
2     Oman     11.40     2005 est.
3     Qatar     10.00     2005 est.
4     Saudi Arabia     10.00     2005 est.
5     Iraq     8.60     2006
6     Jordan     8.60     2006
7     Israel     7.30     2006
8     Yemen     6.60     2006
9     Armenia     6.50     2001
10     Eritrea     6.30     2006 est.
11     Burundi     5.90     2006 est.
12     Syria     5.90     2005 est.
13     Angola     5.70     2006
14     Mauritania     5.50     2006
15     Maldives     5.50     2005 est.
This is more of a concern to me.

I couldn't care less about the big man that could damage me if he wanted.  I'm worried about the little man that feverishly spends his resources to better his odds against me.
Whos the top spender on attack resources? I wonder who...
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
2008-03-04 23:20:01
RoosterCantrell
Goodbye :)
+399|6505|Somewhere else

RAIMIUS wrote:

RoosterCantrell wrote:

There is no more room hre on Earth.  IF nations would just evolve beyond paranoia and imperialism, maybe we could work TOGETHER with all that money, and as a global alliance, actually move beyond earth. 

In this era, this timeframe, it is technically possible to actually colonize other planets.  I don't understand why this isn't a HUGE HUGE issue.

We are squabbling over slivers of land here on earth.  Sure it's costly to get off this rock, but so is war and military spending.

Seriously, the human race needs to grow the fuck up.
To paraphrase Tolkien, men desire power above all else. 

We could colonize Mars, but it would be EXTREMELY costly and inefficient, as we do not know exactly what it takes to successfully teraform a planet...yet.  Think about how much it costs to run the ISS, then multiply that by 1000.

In the short term, it is much more efficient to develop ways to live on earth via reduced footprints.
Yes, but even with reducing our energy needs, the population is still growing, and there is a finite amount of recources here, so as of now, it's quite costly, but possible.  I think we should get the ball rolling on making it more plausable, and financially possible, befoore we are far up fucked river, paddless and in the bickering war hungry stance we are in now.

The#1Spot wrote:

Venus is a very poisonous planet and mars has virtually nothing on it. If anything we will just make taller buildings.
There is NO WAY mars has nothing on it.  it's a massive ball of various things.  I agree, there is little to work with, but that's where our money should be going, to figure out what to do with it.



If the human race does not destroy itself first, it will colonize the solar system.  With the direction that science has taken in merely 40 years, what will it be like in another 100?  Why not start now?  The alternative is self destruction.  Not a very good alternative.
2008-03-04 23:29:43
Marinejuana
local
+415|6611|Seattle

Pug wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Top spenders on defense, according to percent of GDP


1     North Korea     22.90     2003 est.
2     Oman     11.40     2005 est.
3     Qatar     10.00     2005 est.
4     Saudi Arabia     10.00     2005 est.
5     Iraq     8.60     2006
6     Jordan     8.60     2006
7     Israel     7.30     2006
8     Yemen     6.60     2006
9     Armenia     6.50     2001
10     Eritrea     6.30     2006 est.
11     Burundi     5.90     2006 est.
12     Syria     5.90     2005 est.
13     Angola     5.70     2006
14     Mauritania     5.50     2006
15     Maldives     5.50     2005 est.
Interesting group there if you look closely at the list.
A table like that says nothing about the overall amount of military spending. A military can only operate under a very high initial industrial and resource overhead. The lowest GDP countries that maintain effective armies are going to have the highest percentage of GDP dedicated to military spending because the initial costs of feeding an army and purchasing supplies (especially when buying foreign technology) are not going to be any lower for countries of equal population or area when one has a low GDP versus high GDP. As GDP expands, the need for a proportionately larger, more expensive, military does not. Therefore the percentage of GDP spent on the military becomes less for the "developed" countries.

Even though we spend many times more on our military per capita than a country like Saudi Arabia, their GDP is about 2% of the U.S. or E.U. GDP, so their military costs nevertheless consume a larger percentage of their pathetically small GDP.

By choosing those stats, you essentially posted us a list of the lowest GDP countries that can still afford an ostensibly effective standing army. Anyway, congrats on trying to post uselessly deceptive stats, "Top spenders on defense," lol, as if "as percent of GDP" doesn't completely negate the initial phrase. Where did you find this? Fox? CNN? NYT?

Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-03-04 23:32:20)

2008-03-04 23:43:30
legionair
back to i-life
+336|6649|EU

Jepeto87 wrote:

That must be what the anti-satellite weapon is about. Modern armies are so relent on them for communications and fire support, getting rid of them may level the playing field somewhat.
That's why some countries are looking negatively at all the technologies coordinated by satellites being implemented in vehicles almost having no alternative. The winner will be the one, who perfectly knows-reads map and not the one who knows which button and when he must press
2008-03-04 23:47:08
legionair
back to i-life
+336|6649|EU

Stingray24 wrote:

China can play too, as long as they keep their ball in their own yard.
do you mean by not atacking anyone? like US keeps its ball in its yard?
2008-03-05 00:04:41
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6867|Cologne, Germany

fadedsteve wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

New Cold War = China. . . . .

We are at the beginning stages of what is about to be a VERY turbulent relationship. . . . .
And how long have people been saying that for?
The media sure as hell hasnt classified the relationship as a cold war yet. . . . But I can tell you that China is in ACTIVE pursuit of trying to take us on economically and militarily.  They may have a couple billion folks but America when provoked is a nasty country to fuck with!!  Its only a matter of time till China deliberately steps on our toes. . . .
doubt it. As long as they keep making that kind of money off western nations, they'd be outright crazy to "step on our toes", as you so eloquently put it.
And what's to gain in a conflict anyway ?

The only issue that I could imagine to be a source of conflict in the future is the energy issue, especially oil, and where to get it from. But the earlier the west starts to put some serious effort into research of alternative energy ressources, the less likely the oil issue will bite us in the ass.

There is no need for a conflict with China.
2008-03-05 01:51:26
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6783|Argentina

mikkel wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

US: 4.06% GDP
PRC: 4.3% GDP

Use figures that are comparable.
US             U$D 2,000 per capita
PRC           U$S 50 per capita
So you're suggesting that population, rather than gross domestic product, determines the purchasing power of a nation?
Taxes.
2008-03-05 01:57:25
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6436|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:

mikkel wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


US             U$D 2,000 per capita
PRC           U$S 50 per capita
So you're suggesting that population, rather than gross domestic product, determines the purchasing power of a nation?
Taxes.
Not an issue when the government owns the industrial base. That's why the per capita numbers for China don't represent the same thing as per capita numbers from most Western countries.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard