Military Review

Defense budgets: USA - ahead of the rest

43



According to the rating of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) for 2012 a year, the rest of the world’s leader in the global arms race, the number of armed forces is less than 10000 people (the condition of being ranked), is noticeably lagging behind. Nevertheless, quite large defense budgets can boast of such states as China, Russia, Great Britain, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, and Italy. All these countries are in the top ten.

Rating illustrated in the magazine Kommersant Money. The material also states that world military spending in 2012 was estimated at 1,756 trillion. dollars, or 2,5% of global GDP. The largest increase in military spending in 2003-2012. demonstrated Saudi Arabia and the BRIC countries.

It is noted that the most expensive military campaigns of the XXI century were operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In total, they cost the US $ 4-6 trillion. dollars, if we consider the costs of social security of servicemen.

The United States occupy a “star” position in the rating, far ahead of all other countries in spending: 682 billion dollars in 2012 and 39% of the global share of defense spending (an increase of 2003% compared to 32).

In the second position - China: 166 billion dollars, 9,5%, an increase of 175%.

Russia ranks third: 90,7 billion, 5,2%, an increase of 113%.

Next come the UK (60,8 billion, 3,5%, an increase of 4,9%); Japan (59,3 billion, 3,4%, an increase of 3,6%); France (58,9 billion, 3,4%, an increase of 3,3%); Saudi Arabia (56,7 billion, 3,2%, an increase of 111%); India (46,1 billion, 2,6%, an increase of 65%); Germany (45,8 billion, 2,6%, an increase of 1,5%); Italy (34,0 billion, 1,9%, an increase of 19%).

Thus, it is clear that the undisputed leaders in the growth of military spending from 2003 to 2012. are China, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

There is in the ranking and indicator of the share of military spending in relation to the GDP of the state. The largest military expenses are in 2012 for Saudi Arabia (8,26%), Oman (6,42%), Israel (5,99%), Yemen, (5,50%), USA (4,91%), Jordan (4,82%), Algeria (4,47%) , Iraq (4,46%), Myanmar (4,42%), Armenia (3,77%). The Saudis are the clear leader in this indicator.

As for the number of armies in the world, the PRC is surely rushing ahead: 2285 thousand people. The second largest country in the Armed Forces is the United States (1580 thousand). In third place - India (1325 thousand people). The top five are closed by the DPRK (1106 thousand people) and Russia (1026 thousand people).

Among the most militarized countries in terms of the ratio of military personnel to the economically active population are: DPRK (7,47% of military personnel), Eritrea (7,30%), Iraq (7,17%), Jordan (5,85%), Syria (5,60%), Israel (5,53% ), Lebanon (3,93%), Oman (3,28%), Armenia (3,18%), Djibouti (3,13%).

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal is sounding the alarm. The United States is currently cutting back on military spending, and “growing world powers” ​​are becoming more aggressive. According to the magazine, which leads Газета.руFirst of all, we are talking about Russia, China and Iran. These countries more often and more often arrange for American allies in the South China Sea, Georgia and the Strait of Hormuz. They violate air and sea space, and at the same time exert diplomatic pressure to evaluate the response of American partners, the article notes. Therefore, according to the publication, the United States should develop a new global strategy.

From media reports it is known that on the 2013 fiscal year, the US military budget was approved in the amount of 633 billion, which is almost 50 billion less than on 2012.

In the 2013 fiscal year, the United States will cut its military budget by 87 billion. Before 2017, the American defense industry will cut 259 billion dollars, and in ten years 487 billion dollars.

As Lyubov Lyulko notes (To Pravda.Ru), referring to the forecast of the National Intelligence Council of the United States from 2008, the largest in the world by 2025 will be the Chinese defense complex. This is part of the "Chinese dream". The military budget of China, according to IHS Global Insight, will double over the period from 2011 to 2015 a year and exceed the total defense spending of all the other APR countries.

The United States is far from the US, but the ratio between them has decreased from 7 to 1 in 2003 to 4 to 1 in 2012, SIPRI report author Sam Perlo-Freeman told the Associated Press. He stressed the fact that the qualitative gap is incredibly high: the USA has 11 aircraft carriers, and China has 1. “It takes time for quantitative indicators to develop into qualitative changes,” said Perlo-Freeman.

It should be noted that when implementing the long-term budget cuts by the United States for defense, China and Russia will emerge as the leaders of the SIPRI list.

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. SPIRITofFREEDOM
    SPIRITofFREEDOM 11 July 2013 09: 14 New
    +5
    Надо же как то от "дерьмократии " отбиваться
    1. Deniska999
      Deniska999 11 July 2013 09: 25 New
      +3
      In the DPRK, such an army is as numerous as in Russia. To go nuts.
      1. Gato
        Gato 11 July 2013 11: 07 New
        +2
        More precisely, the army in Russia is the same in number as in the DPRK. Really, go nuts.
        А вообще, считали только ВС? А "вованы", милиция-полиция, всякие-разные военнизированные формирования?
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 11 July 2013 13: 16 New
          +2
          The DPRK army is anomalously large and at times exceeds the typical percentage of the country's population for adequate states, not Latvia.
          1. aksakal
            aksakal 12 July 2013 00: 25 New
            +4
            Quote: Avenger711
            The DPRK army is anomalously large and at times exceeds the typical percentage of the country's population for adequate states, not Latvia.
            - not abnormally, but normal for such conditions of existence. There is no complete sovereignty in this world, we can only talk about the degree of sovereignty. Countries with a very low degree of confidence even state their chosen prime ministers in the State Department (cite examples?). Countries with a small degree of sovereignty can pursue their own policies, including domestic politics, but at the same time engage in mimicry. An example is my Kazakhstan. What are all these performances with the election of the President of the country for? Yes, mimicry for the State Department. Russia is a country with an average degree of sovereignty. It can defend its interests, which sometimes run counter to the interests of the sovereign, but again, elections, conditions of internal financial policy ... And there are countries with a high degree of sovereignty. DPRK is the same country. She does not care about democracy, she has her own regime - the regime of Juche's ideas. She can afford not to mimic. Of course, a high degree of sovereignty does not mean full sovereignty. The DPRK has some dependence on China. Cuba - from Venezuela.
            Вы хотите называться суверенной страной? Будьте готовы содержать очень сильную армию. Это - плата за высокую степень суверенитета. Нехотите содержать такую армию? Сдайтесь на милость США, проведите у себя выболры и утвердите выбранное лицо в Госдепе. Если оно там не будет утвержденно, повторите выборы, и так до тех пор, пока не выберите такого "лидера", который бы устроил Госдеп. Будьте так же готовы всегда тявкать на того, на кого укажут из Госдепа. Тогда вам не надо содержать большую армию, но едва ли вы будете от этого богаче - при таком "лидере" все интерсеные активы вашей страны будут принадлежать не гражданам вашей страны, а по совпадению тем же лицам, что в Госдепе сидят. Вашему мужскому населению вместо освоения винтовок придется учиться виртуозно готовить и виртуозно подносить кофе, а девушкам - изучать Кама-Сутру, сто пудов пригодится laughing Не знаю, Авенджер, кто вам тут плюсов насовал, не ставлю ничего, но вот я с вами за КНДР и "аномальность" несогласен. Осуждая США в большинстве своих постов, тем не менее многие форумчане рассуждают о КНДР именно с позиций США laughing laughing laughing Share how you do it? I don’t have it - if there is a rejection of the USA and those ideas that the States are imposing, then I look at everything from this bell tower. And uvs somehow it turns out to change the bell tower laughing Share the secret.
      2. Basileus
        Basileus 11 July 2013 11: 13 New
        +3
        Well, the strength of the DPRK army is not a secret for me. But he did not know that in Iraq such a quantity was put under arms by the people.
      3. Pimply
        Pimply 11 July 2013 16: 46 New
        +1
        In Russia, less. The actual number at the moment is about 680-700 thousand. Million - payroll.
    2. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 11 July 2013 22: 57 New
      0
      hi

      I recommend to look and everything will immediately become clear, for what and how much -

    3. Apologet.Ru
      Apologet.Ru 12 July 2013 01: 10 New
      -1
      hi
      Quote
      The United States occupy a “star” position in the rating, far ahead of all other countries in spending: 682 billion dollars in 2012 and 39% of the global share of defense spending (an increase of 2003% compared to 32).
      In the second position - China: 166 billion dollars, 9,5%, an increase of 175%.
      Russia ranks third: 90,7 billion, 5,2%, an increase of 113%.


      I’ll add from myself -
      while external public debt is
      - America - 16, 893 trillion dollars, which is 108% to GDP
      - China - 765 billion dollars, which is 14% of the runway
      - Russia - 684 billion dollars, which amounted to 27% of GDP

      This is what it means to print the world currency ourselves and in my mind (I have American rubles) ...
  2. omsbon
    omsbon 11 July 2013 09: 16 New
    +6
    It seems to me that the main problem of increasing the military budget in Russia is that it would grow not quantity, but quality!
    1. LaGlobal
      LaGlobal 11 July 2013 09: 23 New
      +1
      omsbon

      - I absolutely agree with you! But here more questions are not about quality, but about the negligence of some personalities ...
  3. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 11 July 2013 09: 22 New
    +3
    Достали уже авианосцами меряться,сколько можно.Давайте наклепаем штук 40,и все будут нас бояться.Конечно выглядят они круто,но не надо забывать, например, гордость Британского флота и утопитель "Бисмарка" авианосец "Арк Ройял" был запросто торпедирован простой немецкой подводной лодкой.Я кстати рад за рост бюджета НОАК и России,но у нас было "секретное оружие по осваиванию средств на оборону" под названием Сердюков,сколько он там спер в реальности никто не знает и наверное никогда уже не узнает.
    1. knyazDmitriy
      knyazDmitriy 11 July 2013 09: 31 New
      +3
      Of course, we must be happy for the growth of our budget, I join the aforementioned, we must certainly monitor the quality, but the fact that it is growing very rapidly in the PRC is cause for concern. The Chinese are very cunning - do not forget about it.
    2. LaGlobal
      LaGlobal 11 July 2013 09: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Standard Oil
      everyone will be afraid of us


      - Duc and so are afraid!

      Let's rivet 40 pieces


      - so let's go. Call all RUSSIANS and there will be one aircraft carrier per year!
  4. Nayhas
    Nayhas 11 July 2013 09: 24 New
    +3
    In the USA, they made the right decision to stifle the military-industrial complex, which has recently ceased to know the measure especially under the Republicans ... This will only benefit him.
    PS: how is the RF Armed Forces counted 1026 thousand people? With an annual draft of 144 thousand people? Already this alone casts doubt on all statistics ... It’s impossible to calculate China’s military expenditures at all, one can only speculate, and then multiply the estimated by X.
    1. Mart
      11 July 2013 09: 31 New
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      PS: Is this how in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation counted 1026 thousand people?

      SIPRI in the Russian Federation and China gives evaluation of.
      1. Airman
        Airman 11 July 2013 10: 14 New
        0
        [quote = Mart] [quote = Nayhas] P.S .: how is it that 1026 thousand people counted in the RF Armed Forces? [/ quote]
        Official statistics.
    2. igor36
      igor36 11 July 2013 10: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      how is the RF Armed Forces counted 1026 thousand people?

      This data is in open sources:
      Number structure:
      Army Officers 220
      Private and sergeants
      Contract 186
      By call 291 420
      Other Categories
      University cadets ~ 40
      Cadets of military training centers ~ 30 000
      Officers and warrant officers in sergeant posts 70
      Total
      Total headcount 920
      Behind the state and at the disposal of ~ 70
      Total established number 1

      So the mistake is not so great.
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 11 July 2013 10: 19 New
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      In the USA, they made the right decision to stifle the military-industrial complex, which has recently ceased to know the measure especially under the Republicans ... This will only benefit him.

      A huge number of Americans work there and to stifle this production means to increase the number of unemployed people, so I strongly doubt that they will stumble it, most likely they will curtail their operations in the East and save on that.
  5. evgenii67
    evgenii67 11 July 2013 09: 39 New
    +1
    Hello everyone! "По данным рейтинга Стокгольмского института исследования проблем мира (SIPRI) за 2012 год" - we know why these ratings are: money, money, more money, the world is in danger, China and Russia are catching up with us, ay-yy-yay! "Третье место занимает Россия: 90,7 млрд. долл., 5,2%, рост на 113%." - But how could it be otherwise, because before that one could say nothing came into service at all, everyone plundered and collapsed, now it’s restored, and building is harder than destroying. "В 2013 финансовом году США сократят свой военный бюджет на 87 миллиардов. До 2017 из американской «оборонки» будет урезано 259 миллиардов долларов, а за десять лет — 487 миллиардов долларов." At this rate, perhaps the world will see a bipolar world — it would be nice to have such a bipolar world: Russia and China, and the United States in the camp of the Third Countries. "Подчеркнул он и то, что качественный разрыв — невероятно высок: США имеет 11 авианосцев, а Китай — 1" Haha, what is the strength of the brother, obviously not in the aircraft carriers or even in their quantity, in the case of a more or less serious mess, aircraft carriers can become a weakness and a headache for the country in which these giants are listed.
  6. cumastra1
    cumastra1 11 July 2013 09: 57 New
    0
    You can immediately see who is preparing for war.
    1. Rubik
      Rubik 11 July 2013 13: 26 New
      +1
      Russia, China and Saudi Arabia? They show the largest increase in spending, while leaders are cutting.
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 12 July 2013 00: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: Rubik
        Russia, China and Saudi Arabia? They show the largest increase in spending, while leaders are cutting.
        - ну саудовцев можно смело вычеркивать, не в коня корм. Рост военных расходов считаем только для тех, у кого в оборонке значительная доля своего НИОКР. Китай и и Россия тут вне сомнений, а вот Саудовская Аравия каким-боком в лидеры затесалась? Только на основании больших расходов на закупку военного железа, за управление которыми у них даже сажать некого? Как вы это представляете? - весь такой выхоленный и изнеженный араб в белоснежном по боевой тревоге запрыгивает в танк и едет воевать? Один такой захотел повоевать в Сирии, так с тех пор боевикии ССА очень просят таких воинов сидеть дома, ибо спасение такого горе-воина ("спасение рядового Райана" в восточной интерпретации, название немного поменять - "спасение великого вониа шейха... ибн Сауда" laughing laughing ) militants cost a good bunch of corpses laughing So I ask the Saudis from this list convincingly laughing laughing
  7. Airman
    Airman 11 July 2013 10: 22 New
    +1
    The rating is made from official sources, and nobody knows the real spending of states on defense and attack, even the Senate and the State Duma. Therefore, simply take note of such ratings.
  8. Dimy4
    Dimy4 11 July 2013 10: 23 New
    0
    У кого больше бюджет, у того больше и "распил" по кармашкам. Ну, кроме Китая наверно.
    1. Rubik
      Rubik 11 July 2013 13: 28 New
      -3
      China ranks 78th in terms of corruption. This is certainly better than Russia (154th place) but much worse than the United States (22nd place)
  9. Alekseir162
    Alekseir162 11 July 2013 10: 32 New
    +3
    Quote: saturn.mmm
    most likely they will curtail their operations in the east and save on that.

    Скорее всего так оно и будет, уж больно дорого обходится экспорт демократии, даже для "амеров". Несмотря на то что пентагон тратит для этого фантики (думаю, никто не сомневается что "амеры" живут за счёт остального мира).
  10. a52333
    a52333 11 July 2013 10: 45 New
    +2
    I would like to draw the attention of members of the forum that the military budget in the absolute should not be measured. An aircraft carrier made in the United States costs many times more than a one made in Russia, and even more so in China. (overhead, salary and maintenance)
    1. Gato
      Gato 11 July 2013 11: 16 New
      0
      Quote: a52333
      I would like to draw the attention of members of the forum that the military budget in the absolute should not be measured.

      К тому же, если он "тратится" внутри страны, на свой ВПК - это одно, а когда уходит на иностранные закупки - совсем другое. Ау, "Мистрали"!
      1. Corneli
        Corneli 11 July 2013 21: 46 New
        +2
        Quote: Gato
        К тому же, если он "тратится" внутри страны, на свой ВПК - это одно, а когда уходит на иностранные закупки - совсем другое. Ау, "Мистрали"!

        Уж простите, но по соотношению "цена/качество/скорость постройки" - не соглашусь! Еслиб корабли аля мистраль строились/проэктировались только на Российских верфях/кб, затраты б были мин в 2 раза больше! (а может и ЕЩЕ больше) причем сами корабли бы сделали...когда то, типа к 2020г. (магическое число для рос. ВПК, видимо)
        П.С. Разумееться это мое, исключительно субьективное мнение!(основанное на том как пилят бабло в России...на "ноу-хау проэктах"). Причем не стоит забывать, что верфи загруженны и другими срочными работами(новые корабли, подлодки, "апгрейд" старых кораблей, доводка на продажу...)
    2. Rubik
      Rubik 11 July 2013 13: 29 New
      0
      Right. Therefore, I would divide the US budget into two parts.
  11. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 11 July 2013 11: 54 New
    +2
    Hooray, long live the imperial overheating in the empire of good, comrades, cheers! With every homing bomb fired on an Afghan donkey, one American family is sent around the world, is evicted on the street, starving, and begging. This is very conducive to rethinking the country's role in the world among the population. More bombs, more missiles, more aircraft carriers. Hooray military spending amers, the entire progressive population with you.
  12. Orty
    Orty 11 July 2013 12: 19 New
    0
    You don’t have to get so hung up on the budget, firstly, using the position of the US emission center, they can print as much money as they want, secondly, their cuts and kickbacks simply turn pale compared to ours. Moreover, they are still quite modest on technology, but on consumables, light bulbs, or toilet paper or paint in general, things like this that do not attract close attention are simply going through the roof! So the wedge did not converge on the digital light.
    1. Rubik
      Rubik 11 July 2013 13: 31 New
      +1
      If they could print as much as they wanted, there would be no public debt, and generally no problems, they would print immediately 100 trillion in budget. Do not write nonsense if you do not understand the issue.
      1. Orty
        Orty 11 July 2013 14: 02 New
        0
        My dear, first figure out the question yourself, find out what the Fed is from, how and to whom the dollar is being sold, and then come on OK? A national debt is the debt of the United States to its debtors in the role of which acts as the Fed and everyone who buys the state. US bonds. Bonds that are long ago unsecured and if tomorrow, for example, the United States show their repayment, this will lead to the collapse of the dollar so there will be nothing to repay it. This situation arose from the fact that the Fed had been printing and printing unsecured currency since the 70s of the last century, however, this process reached its peak in the 90s, because then these grandmas could be absorbed by purchasing assets in the former eastern bloc. As a result, a lot of debts and essentially an unsecured dollar, so when or do you seriously think that the US GDP is 14 trillion. dollars?
        1. Grishka100watt
          Grishka100watt 11 July 2013 19: 54 New
          +1
          I would not take the US public debt so seriously, because they did not give it, they will not give it and they will not give it to anyone and never will. ETOGES system. What nafig duty, do not tell)))
          This amount simply symbolizes the tribute collected from around the world, that's all)
          Those states that buy bonds know that no one will present them for redemption, but can only wipe their ass. For it is a tribute, framed in a beautiful way so that unnecessary questions do not arise among citizens of states with colonial status.
          1. Evgeniy46
            Evgeniy46 11 July 2013 21: 21 New
            0
            a beautiful statement, but ... Russia has reduced investment in their paper. That is, presented for payment. And according to your words, this is impossible. So think what is wrong in your speech
            1. Grishka100watt
              Grishka100watt 12 July 2013 11: 36 New
              0
              reduced investment That's what it is presented for payment?
        2. Beck
          Beck 12 July 2013 21: 03 New
          0
          Quote: Orty
          A national debt is the debt of the United States to its debtors in the role of which acts as the Fed and everyone who buys the state. US bonds


          As far as I understand, the US public debt is not a debt to debtors.

          It seems it all started with Nixon, or with Reagan. Some of them did not have enough budget money to fulfill the campaign promises. So the US government asked for a loan from its own bank, the Fed. Fed and printed the right amount. And subsequently money was printed for other programs, other presidents. In general, this public debt looks like a debt from the left pocket to the right when the owner transfers money. And all countries have taken this path.

          Currently, US government debt is 62% of GDP. The public debt of Russia is 84%. Japan 164%. Germany 83%. France 82%. China 34%. Etc. And nothing the world lives and does not think to fall into the abyss. And it so happened that the era when money must have been provided with gold has passed. Now there are some other economic provisions. Money lives on its own.

          Yes, the US military budget is huge and we should be happy to reduce it, and not be malicious. After all, its decrease speaks only about one thing, the general tension and confrontation with the WORLD decreases.

          By the way, in the US budget, health care spending has always exceeded defense spending. I foresee the laughter of Uroshniks.

          US budget for 2012. Expenses.

          For healthcare 891,2 billion dollars, 24,7%

          For social needs 784,2 billion, 21,8%

          For defense, 678,1 billion, 18,8%

          Now I hear the grinding of teeth.
    2. Ducksar
      Ducksar 11 July 2013 19: 40 New
      0
      Вы наверное хотели сказать наши "попилы и откаты бледнеют" по сравнению с ихними?!
      1. Orty
        Orty 12 July 2013 09: 53 New
        0
        Yeah wrong sorry
  13. Yeraz
    Yeraz 11 July 2013 13: 13 New
    +1
    Hah, they say Azerbaijan is a militarized country and thankless. And in relation to GDP, Baku spends less and in relation to the population of the military less than in Armenia.
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 11 July 2013 13: 21 New
      +3
      Armenia is smaller in itself, but somehow it needs to maintain a balance of power.
  14. pinecone
    pinecone 11 July 2013 13: 30 New
    0
    Сам по себе объём военных расходов какой либо страны без учёта его структуры не может считаться полноценным показателем. В частности, достаточно сравнить размеры денежного довольствия личного состава ВС США с армиями других стран, входящими в "пятёрку" государств с наиболее многочисленными вооруженными силами.
  15. Russ69
    Russ69 11 July 2013 13: 56 New
    0
    Самая "свободная", "дерьмократическая" и "мирная" страна, без мощной армии просто не просуществует. Вся политика основана на колонизации других стран, просто теперь это называется демократизация, только вот суть не поменялась.

    By the way, the United States, urging Russia to reduce nuclear weapons, they themselves do with an accuracy of a turn:
    US increases funding for nuclear weapons. In particular, spending on B61 bomb programs will rise. They are the main thermonuclear weapon of the strategic forces of the United States and are located in Europe.
    A total of $ 537 million was initially allocated to the nuclear bomb financing program. But the Appropriations Committee, where most of the seats belong to the Republicans, allocated $ 23,7 million more than the department requested.

    http://www.dni.ru/polit/2013/7/11/255965.html
  16. cool.ya-nikola
    cool.ya-nikola 11 July 2013 15: 08 New
    0
    Quote: Mart
    SIPRI for the Russian Federation and China gives an assessment

    Good day to you, Oleg! Excuse me, the figure is 1026 thousand people, is this taking into account the Internal Troops?
  17. PValery53
    PValery53 11 July 2013 18: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Alekseir162
    Несмотря на то что пентагон тратит для этого фантики (думаю, никто не сомневается что "амеры" живут за счёт остального мира).

    То, что амеры паразитируют на мировом сообществе, - мозолит глаза, наверно, всем. Отказавшись от использования их валюты, мы "сбросим их с хвоста". Ах, да, мировая экономика слишком "завязана" на этот зелёный доллар. Ну, ды-к, надо постепенно выбираться из этого дерьма. Дружно, и всем миром... сбросить этого клеща !
  18. pensioner
    pensioner 11 July 2013 18: 08 New
    0
    Oleg! Thanks - tremendous !! But sorry:is less than 10000 people - not right: not less than 10000 people Sorry again! Here I am ... I’m the last bastard !!
  19. super.ufu2013
    super.ufu2013 12 July 2013 15: 42 New
    0
    a good budget is good but far from even half the battle