The title is too short.

Can Britain, France, or China spend the same amount of money on the military like the United States if it wanted to or are their economies too small to support such as a large military budget?

The US official military budget is around 450 billion. Can Britain or France spend that much?

In terms of dollar amount, then no simply because no other country has the wallet size the U.S. has. In terms of percentage of GDP, then yes definitely. It's unfair to look at it in terms of dollar amount because if a country makes more, then it should be able to spend more. If its equipment is more expensive or they want to spend it on more expensive stuff, then that's their prerogative. What matters is how much of their GDP are they tapping into. The U.S. barely taps into 5% of its GDP for defense/military whereas North Korea spends over 25% of its GDP on defense/military.

I agree with the above post. Along with this, I also think that largely the American military budget is strained by the conflict in Iraq and through things I wouldnt quite call corruption, but something very similar. So if we are looking at military research or force development, I think that there are countries out there that could outspend the US.

Get this, in 1945 The defense budget for the U.S. was around 40%,

Now,it lands around 3, to 5%

With M1A2s, F 35s on the way, M 8 adapable small arms systems. All these facy M 4 Carbines and M 4 Acessories, You think our budget was around 50%

Don't think cause of that our military whine in dirty conditions, they are trained well, but not spoiled.

To add, I believe that most of our defense budget is being poorly spent. Too much of it is going into crazy technologically advanced weaponry when it should be going to the care and well-being of the ground troops. The ground troops should get more tech toys that allow them to do their job safely and effectively (i.e. bomb-defusing robots, body armor, X-ray guns, etc.). The vast majority of military combat today is focused on ground combat. Also, we need better retirement funding for our past, present, and future veterans.

Originally Posted by Sukio

Get this, in 1945 The defense budget for the U.S. was around 40%,

Now,it lands around 3, to 5%

With M1A2s, F 35s on the way, M 8 adapable small arms systems. All these facy M 4 Carbines and M 4 Acessories, You think our budget was around 50%

Don't think cause of that our military whine in dirty conditions, they are trained well, but not spoiled.

The defense budget at 40% in 1945 was because it was a World War. Thousands of Tanks, Planes, Ships, and Bombs were rolling off the assembly line and immediately into service. We won't see that type of spending again.

Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon

To add, I believe that most of our defense budget is being poorly spent. Too much of it is going into crazy technologically advanced weaponry when it should be going to the care and well-being of the ground troops. The ground troops should get more tech toys that allow them to do their job safely and effectively (i.e. bomb-defusing robots, body armor, X-ray guns, etc.). The vast majority of military combat today is focused on ground combat. Also, we need better retirement funding for our past, present, and future veterans.

The government should provide veterans full health care coverage when they retire. Current soldiers should get better body armor and bomb resistent vehicles. Too many people blow themselves up in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Red_Army

The defense budget at 40% in 1945 was because it was a World War. Thousands of Tanks, Planes, Ships, and Bombs were rolling off the assembly line and immediately into service. We won't see that type of spending again.

Another example of a person who doesn't understand WE ARE AT WAR RIGHT NOW... hello?!!?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Another example of a person who doesn't understand WE ARE AT WAR RIGHT NOW... hello?!!?

Are you willing to admit that the scale and the magnitude of the war on terror/Iraq War is nowhere near as big as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? The entire US economy shifted all of its production to the military. Tens of millions of American soldiers and thousands of ships, tanks, and planes were involved.

This Iraq War is peanuts compared to World War II.

The point is that it SHOULDN'T be. I in fact believe that the scope and scale of this conflict, TWAT, is larger than WWII. The fact that spending does not match the effort produced in WWII is a sad testament to the fact that there are many people, like yourself, who do not understand the nature of the enemies we face and that our populaces are walking around in a daze blissfully unaware of the threat in their very midst, let alone around the globe.

PSA over, you may all now return to your delusions.

Originally Posted by WNxRogue

I agree with the above post. Along with this, I also think that largely the American military budget is strained by the conflict in Iraq and through things I wouldnt quite call corruption, but something very similar. So if we are looking at military research or force development, I think that there are countries out there that could outspend the US.

Not corruption. Greed, and on a massive scale.

Another question is, What country would want to spend as much as the US if all that fancy technology can't squash the Iraqi insurgency.