Defense Spending by Country

Global Firepower ^ | 2018 | Global Firepower

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Spending in US dollars

1. USA $647,000,000,000

2. China $151,000,000,000

3. Saudi Arabia $56,725,000,000

4. United Kingdom $50,000,000,000

5. India $47,000,000,000

6. Russia $47,000,000,000

7. Germany $45,200,000,000

8. Japan $44,000,000,000

9. France $40,000,000,000

10. South Korea $40,000,000,000

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The full list is at the link, all the way down to Bhutan at #136.

Considering what Russia spends and what our NATO allies contribute, I don't see why we have to be carrying the alliance.

And with what Saudi Arabia spends compared to Iran, not even counting the contribution from Israel and the emirates, it is hard to see Iran being a hegemonic threat in the Middle East. Iran's military budget is less than Mexico and just ahead of Sweden.

[butlerweave]

Thanks to Trudeau Canada spends $1.95

[pgyanke]

We are unmatched in the world militarily. Image, though, how much less we could spend or how much better we could be without the fraud, waste, and abuse!

[Zhang Fei]

[Considering what Russia spends and what our NATO allies contribute, I don’t see why we have to be carrying the alliance.

And with what Saudi Arabia spends compared to Iran, not even counting the contribution from Israel and the emirates, it is hard to see Iran being a hegemonic threat in the Middle East. Iran’s military budget is less than Mexico and just ahead of Sweden.]

---

Note that these are estimates. A lot of authoritarian state spending is off the books. Even if you take their spending at face value, salary differences have to be taken into account. Chinese salaries are, on average 1/8 US salaries. That’s why Apple assembles iPhones there. Russian salaries are lower than Chinese salaries, and Iranian salaries are lower still. I would multiply their defense budgets, as stated in this compilation, by 4x for comparability, at minimum, to account for these differences. And that’s assuming that these authoritarian states are telling us the whole truth.

Another factor not accounted for is that Russia has thousands of nukes. China may have thousands, but we won’t know for sure until its existing regime is replaced by a more open one.

[SkyPilot]

These comparisons with other nations are very instructive, but also misleading in many ways.

There are programs that are cataloged as "Defense spending", when in reality they have little to nothing to do with the DoD. The sad reality is that the Defense Appropriations bill is considered a "must pass" bill by Congress. It is too important. Therefore, politicians load it up with spending that has nothing to do with the military. Obama was the worst offender of this, with "Climate Change" and other garbage thrown into the bill.

"Black programs" are also lumped into the DoD budget. Not all of them have to do with the US military.<> Further, we have to go by what other nation's publically tell us the pay for defense. In the US, transparency is the law. Other nation's can and do mask their real defense outlays..

But the most striking aspect that most people do not understand is that the equivalent of $1 spent by China does not equal the same military effectiveness power as $1 spent by the DoD.

The DoD can spend $250 for a pair of boots for US soldier. Are they good boots? Sure. But within the cost for those boots are monies spent for safety, environmental compliance, union wages, 8A minority set aside contracts, legal fees, and on and on.

China or Russia can produce a pair of boots that are just as good for $20 or less. The same goes for ammunition, or other combat items.

Finally, we pay a premium for our technological edge. A HUGE cost of our expenditures. The tragedy is that through theft, or outright corruption by people like the Clintons and Obamas, our military technology has been transferred to other nations.

During the Obama years, US defense spending declined significantly. Sequestration cut spending on top of the existing cuts.

[Zhang Fei]

[We are unmatched in the world militarily. Image, though, how much less we could spend or how much better we could be without the fraud, waste, and abuse!]

---

Defense, at 3.5% of GDP, is roughly 1/10 of non-defense government (federal, state and local) spending. There is likely to be some fraud, waste and abuse in defense expenditures, but I’d say it’s probably trivial compared to what exists in civilian government spending. Think about the 100% waste that comprises affirmative action and electric car subsidies alone.

[Vendome]

China doesn’t have to spend very much since they steal our technology, they don’t have to invest in R&D...

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Y’all are right that the differing bang for the buck among nations makes a one to one comparison often skewed. On the other hand, we are blessed in this country in that we do not have to have to bear the expense of a large standing army to defend the homeland against neighboring armies, just a more serious effort to police the borders.

[CondorFlight]

It might be mentioned that China’s entire defense budget is paid for the by USA, with interest payments on that part of our debt that China holds.

[OldMissileer]

Thanks to Trudeau Canada spends $1.95

Canadian or US dollars?

[Glad2bnuts]

We assume that what China or Russia for instance are reporting accurately what they spend. Point two would be, their wages for serving must be much much lower, as would most of the other countries not in NATO.

[Wuli]

Some of this comparison is valid, some is not.

Why?

We do not have one single alliance that includes together all our allies in Europe and all our allies in Asia (mostly Japan and South Korea, though Australia as well). Our allies in Europe (NATO) do not have defense expenditures, as we do, related to our Asian allies, and our Asian allies do not have defense expenditures related to our NATO allies. In sum, our defense commitments are broader than either our allies in Europe or our allies in Asia.

Unless you account for that, and discount it, it is otherwise natural that our defense spending would be greater than our NATO allies combined.

It is also true that the largest U.S. defense forces in Asia are not in South Korea (28,000) but in Japan on Okinawa (50,000), and for the most part not for the immediate defense of Japan (right now) but a prepositioning for many different possible scenarios in Asia.

That leaves the real question, which is not directly about NATO, but whether or not the U.S. GLOBAL defense commitment should be as wide, as broad as it is.

One of the reasons that broad committment has fallen to us, is from the post-WWII era on the U.S. has been committed to helping allies, whether in Asia or Japan, not to occupy them (not forever in Japan or Germany’s case), just to be there to help them, because we see supporting them as in our interest. We are trusted to have that stance, more than their neighbors are trusted to have that stance, because of the histories between them. Western European nations accept the U.S. being the major partner there, more than many small European nations would trust a Germany or France as the major military partner. The same is true between Korea and Japan.

What is really needed is some U.S. soul searching about its GLOBAL committment, military defense wise, and that will also require discussions with our European and Asian allies on what a reduced U.S. GLOBAL military posture would look like.

A change would probably take time, and involving a gradual building of trust, building cooperation and building committments by our friends in Asia and our friends in Europe. It would not, and could not happen overnight.

A quick radical change to U.S. isolationism will likely result in too radical, too quick of a build-down of U.S. forces and a build up of tensions in Europe or Asia that might get opportunistically exploited by bad actors, resulting in a major conflict that the U.S. would again be unprepared for.

Yes, we should try to find ways to reduce our global military committment, but haste in doing so could create more than just waste. Working it out is something we should have been doing for at least the last 30 years. We have never had a plan or proposed a plan. All we have done is complain that others should spend more.

[shanover]

The USA doesn’t pay soldiers enough, has to many generals, worthless REMFs and money swallowed in “programs” that will amount to nothing.

[G Larry]

George Soros spending to undermine America must be counted in somebody’s Defense Budget?

[Rockingham]

International military budget comparisons are beset by problems with source data, methodology, and relevancy. Communist dictatorships like China are notoriously secretive about their military spending, while disparities in purchasing power undermine the credibility of official exchange rates as a basis for comparison. Finally, as a superpower with global obligations, the US is locked into higher military spending to sustain its national strategy.

As much as we spend on our military, is it enough? The essential question for the US and every country is whether military spending is sufficient to meet defense needs and strategic aims. Observers can draw useful conclusions by watching whether a country's defense spending, operations and procurement, and force levels and quality are going up, stable, or declining. When that is taken into account, China and Russia must be recognized as buying new enhancements to their military power and becoming major strategic challenges for the US. This in turn requires more US military spending.

Is the US going to be able to deter and contain Russia and China? Ominously, both have embraced revanchist thinking as a basis for otherwise threadbare regime legitimacy. This has stoked popular sentiment favoring military adventures. Both countries are now bullying their neighbors, acting on dodgy territorial claims, and beginning to project military power far from their borders.

The growing rivalry between the US and China has especially unsettling implications when viewed through the classic Thucydidean rationale. As a rising power, China is spurred by the motives of glory and interest to expand at the expense of the United States and her allies. Most times in history that this has occurred, the result has been a catastrophic war. Does anyone with a lick of sense want that to happen if we can prevent it for an extra one or two hundred billion dollars a year in military spending?

[Zhang Fei]

[Is the US going to be able to deter and contain Russia and China? Ominously, both have embraced revanchist thinking as a basis for otherwise threadbare regime legitimacy. This has stoked popular sentiment favoring military adventures. Both countries are now bullying their neighbors, acting on dodgy territorial claims, and beginning to project military power far from their borders.]

---

I’m skeptical about legitimacy and clinging on to power as the rationale for territorial expansion. While it’s repeated ad nauseam in college courses and in newspaper columns, I think it’s nonsense on stilts. Acquiring new land to his domain has always been a ruler’s means of writing his name in the history books.

Alexander was the king of a united Greece. Did he need to conquer Persia? Only if he wanted children and cities (Kandahar in Afghanistan, Iskandaria in Egypt, Iskandariyah in Iraq) to be named after him thousands of years later.

Rulers of great nations are already prominent men. They want first place - not just on the list of their nations’ rulers, but on the list of great (i.e. powerful) rulers spanning all of history. To do that, they need to expand the territory handed to them at the time of their ascension to power. Nobody remembers the rulers who made their citizens rich. Everyone remembers the ones who greatly expanded the borders of their nations. These people are not interested in defense - they’re concerned with cementing reputations that will match Alexander’s or Julius Caesar’s.

[Paul R.]

What is Germany doing with the money they spend on defense? They seem to be “invisible” in terms of capability, any kind of exo-Europe missions in support of NATO, etc.

Also, Saudi sure spends a lot with dismal results...

[MSF BU]

South Korea, which has conscription, has much more money dedicated to actual defense as opposed to salaries and benefits. The same goes with Israel, Switzerland, etc.

[neverevergiveup]

I would like to know how these relative amounts are factored. Specifically, how far does $647,000,000,000 in the US go, vs. $151,000,000,000 in China - where the government can dictate what defense workers make and can dictate what defense manufacturers pay for materials? Same goes for all other non-Western countries. When we buy fighter jets, we are paying for lots of things, including the profits of the manufacturer. The defense industry in China is state owned, and doesn't need to operate on the basis of a profit. Also, military pay and housing can be handled much differently in non-Western countries.

[neverevergiveup]

I posted (much later) without reading your excellent post.