in australia we have CSIRO which does some amazing research, and our military budget is basically non existent compared to the US military budget
[1] https://www.pyneonline.com.au/media-centre/media-releases/a-...
As a percentage of total government expenditure, Australia spends 6% on defence and the US spends 16%.
GDP is not what that defense budget is protecting. People and property are what that budget exists to protect.
China has the second highest defense budget. We have about 1/4 the population of China, yet we spend several times more on defense.
Australia's Defence Science and Technology Group, which does science and other research for the military, is funded at about $400 million AUD/year. It's Australia's 2nd largest research organization after CSIRO.
I'm being a bit facetious of course, I just find it funny that people's acceptance of this argument depends on how much they support the primary subject of the funding.
That requires massive, sustained logistics spending. To the point it may seem absurd and wasteful. But the alternative is fighting a fair fight on equal footing. I’d rather not do that.
So really it’s fair to say that guns and bombs aren’t cheap, but they are also a distraction from the delivery systems, which are catastrophically expensive.
the point it may seem absurd and wasteful. But the alternative is fighting a fair fight on equal footing. I’d rather not do that.
Yeah? Are you sure the alternative isn’t to spend 3 or 4 or 5 times as much as any other nation instead of 7 times as much? Maybe the alternative is to avoid boondoggles, and focus on proven tech. Of course the real alternative is that doing so would get in the way of the real business of arms dealing.
You're right, they sure aren't. But as a result no other military force on earth besides NATO has the capability to launch air superiority fighters from amphibious assault ships, and perform multi-ton circumglobal bombing sorties. That kind of capability doesn't come cheap, and shouldn't be dismissed.
Take away the B2 and we are fighting to-to-toe with Russian/Chinese long range bombers
Without the F-35 we are on equal footing with Chinese/Russian carrier based aircraft
Without Zumwalt class ships, we are going head on against Chinese missile destroyers and subs of equal capability.
The whole point is that you don't want an even remotely fair fight. "Keeping up" with others's spending, even within an order of magnitude, is a really bad idea if you can help it.
Basically, what are you going to do with a Zumwalt that you couldn't do with a submarine? Is it better at any of those tasks than a conventional destroyer?
You think wrong.
If they still have weapons, they sure as hell haven't been using their existence as a deterrent. The whole point of having nukes is letting potential aggressors know that you have them, and that, if attacked, you may be crazy enough to use them.
You must know that Ukraine was attacked 4 years ago. So the "whole point" is not applicable in this case.
It’s why Russia is considered only a regional power, despite having a larger nuclear arsenal than the US. Their ability to perform intercontinental conventional bombing and troop deployment is non-existent. To cede this power to any other nation would be catastrophic to world peace.
What world peace? The US has started two wars that destabilized a whole region, and it shows no sign of restoring anything like peace there. World peace from such a belligerent nation, one that drone strikes most days of the week, is a bad joke or a real example of Orwell in action. How many pointless losing wars does the US need to start, how many governments does it need to overthrow only to see them revert to something even worse before you get that you’re about world peace.
You are not “the good guys.” The US is just in it for money, and that money only for a fraction of its population. It’s just a good thing the US can’t actually win a war it starts, or they’d have taken over by now. What’s actually happened is the likes of North Korea looked at what happened to Libya and Iraq and realized that they needed nuclear weapons. What a great outcome for “world peace” right? I’m sure those nuts won’t sell the technology, and other countries won’t follow suit so as not be “projected” all over.
Surely all you want to do is shoot them down. Bombers are purely offensive weapons. No one needs them unless they plan to attack somewhere else
The DoD budget, as usually reported, generally doesn't include funding allocated for specific operations (e.g. the Afghan or Iraq conflicts).
> focus on proven tech
The average soldier has always wanted proven tech. But what they really need (and what the officers ask for) is training. More HUMVEEs and Arleigh Burke destroyers, fewer wheel 4.0s and Zumwalts.
We are at the top of a power curve with regard to total dollars spent, but we actually about 4th in terms of defense spending as a percent GDP, (I think we're around 5th). Soft power remains our major advantage. Not that bad when you consider our outsize role in world military affairs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-bi...
Your link says US is 4th in list of selected countries, not in the world. On this page US not in the top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
Any reason why percent GDP is the right metric? If we're normalizing I would've expected per capita instead.
At the end of the day I’ve personally settled on “yes but probably not as much as you might think”.
There is no second source for the F-35.
A similar argument is usually touted regarding the economic strain that the 'Space Race' caused the U.S.S.R.[1].
[0] "The Cold War: An International History", p. 42-43 https://books.google.com/books?id=Yv2FAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA43&pg=P...
[1] "Comparison of US and Estimated Soviet Expenditures for Space Programs", p. 3-4, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000316255....
I’d add in a consideration of the opportunity cost.
This logistic spending is certainly not for national defense - it has two oceans, a navy, and two thousand nuclear warheads for that purpose.
No, they are not. Go look up how much the military spends on such things. It is a lot. (Per unit and in aggregate.)
The US has one of the highest median incomes on earth. Now combine that with the large human force that the US military has. The bases, veterans, healthcare, various benefits, retirement, equipment for the humans, salaries, and on it goes.
For example missiles + munition costs are a mere 2% of the military budget. Shipbuilding and maritime systems is a mere 3%. Aircraft and related systems is 5.x%. R&D is about 9%.
The budget related to operating the bases, maintenance, salaries, benefits, vets, and all other related human costs = $500 billion.
There's a strong argument that if you adjust China's military spending to factor in the difference in income / per capita costs for human soldiers vs the US (basically PPP adjusted), that China outspends the US already (and that's with an economy 1/3 smaller):
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-25/china-out...