Can Britain, France, or China spend like the US?

R

Red_Army

Active member
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.
 
Sukio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

ASTRALdragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red_Army said:
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.
Click to expand...

Another example of a person who doesn't understand WE ARE AT WAR RIGHT NOW... hello?!!?
:read:
 
bulldogg said:
Another example of a person who doesn't understand WE ARE AT WAR RIGHT NOW... hello?!!?
:read:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
WNxRogue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bulldogg said:
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.
Click to expand...


Bulldog, hats off your right, its not called the GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR for nothing, its obvious why its called that. I mean, terroists, who want to harm western nations, are everywhere, they know no borders, or any laws. It will take coroperation, as well as hardware.

In order to prevent another massive attack, in the U.S., or in her allies, much will have to be done. But, we are far from total war, like in 1945. But, a little more cash would not hurt.
 
major liability said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps greed is a better word to decribe it. As for your question, I think that countries will invest in said technologies, even though they arent terribly effective against the insurgency because of the diffrence of that type of war. They are fighting "soft" whereas two countries at war would fight "hard". Another way to put it is that we are facing guerillas in Iraq, something the American military has always had an issue with, because our technological prowess is largely mitigated by the lack of decisive engagements. If we were fighting say........china.....then we would be able to fight them hard, and our technology would be at its peak of usefullness.
 
Better to be silent and thought a fool...

major liability said:
What country would want to spend as much as the US if all that fancy technology can't squash the Iraqi insurgency.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to find a nice way of saying this, ML, I have said it before and I'm gonna say it again, YOUR MOUTH is your major liability. Your ignorance should preclude you from commenting on things beyond your comprehension. If you were here I'd throat punch ya to wake your ass up and for being so disrespectful to my friends and family in harms way protecting your right to be an idiot.
 
The cost of bloody iraq war surprise me so much.
But,I think Iraq is not good war for those weapon dealers because not so many big weapons what they want to sell are not purchased.
So,China and Russia will be good enemies for USA.
 
Hey Bulldogg, I didn't say the troops fighting in Iraq aren't some of the best in the world, or that they aren't courageous for the sacrifices they are willing to make in the interest of America and its freedoms.

I was noting that our advanced technology seems useless in this kind of war, not that our soldiers are doing a bad job. Geez.
 
I have to admit, from what I can get my hands on, they seem to be adapting to the that kind of war.
 
Look at America's military history. We are at our best when fighting opponents that fight in a hard style, strength on strength, with objectives to capture and places to destroy. The problem with America's recent military history is that we have fought opponents who dont have objectives that we can capture, and dont have city's or bases to destroy. They fight soft, and our technology is fairly useless against them. This is not to say our soldiers are ineffective, we still have the best quality troops the world has to offer, but the style of warfare in recent years has changed, and the American Military, or more specifically, the American Military Leadership, has to adapt with this switch. We need to streamline the military budget, and IMO spend less on buying fancy new weapons that cost absurd amounts of money each, and spend it on upgrading what we already have, and on further training and equipment for out soldiers.
 
WNxRogue said:
Look at America's military history. We are at our best when fighting opponents that fight in a hard style, strength on strength, with objectives to capture and places to destroy. The problem with America's recent military history is that we have fought opponents who dont have objectives that we can capture, and dont have city's or bases to destroy. They fight soft, and our technology is fairly useless against them. This is not to say our soldiers are ineffective, we still have the best quality troops the world has to offer, but the style of warfare in recent years has changed, and the American Military, or more specifically, the American Military Leadership, has to adapt with this switch. We need to streamline the military budget, and IMO spend less on buying fancy new weapons that cost absurd amounts of money each, and spend it on upgrading what we already have, and on further training and equipment for out soldiers.
Click to expand...


The irony of this is, look at the first war this nation fought, the war of Independence, we fought with similar tactics to some of the enemies we are fighting today.
 
The history is there

One of the things that bother me about the war against terrorism is the source of most of its funding. And because of this funding many more people will die while we and a few other countries go after the snake’s tail and not its head. To me enough with Saudi Arabia it very clear to me that most of the worlds terrorist funding comes from the many levels of this government period. I understand oil is important and runs the world economy but they need to be shaken up big time. The little s___t in the caves or popping out from alleyway wouldn’t have rounds for his AK-47 if it was not for Saudi Arabia turn there heads the other way money. Iran falls into the type of problem but the US doesn’t make believe there all nice with Iran anywhere on the same level as Saudi Arabia. But it’s the same money and even direct training comes from Iran there part of the problem. Syria is another very bad country how much crap do we have to put up from this little evil s__t hole government. How many weapons and funding that kill people in countries all around it do we have to put up with. How many terrorist cross back and forth into Syria daily! Go for the head already. I also have major issues with Pakistan to with terrorist crossing and operating inside there country. I’m tried of hearing we have 80,000 troops on the border and were doing everything we can. I bet if one Indian was trying to cross into the area they wouldn’t make it. They play both sides enough already go for the heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top