China's President Xi Jinping (front), Russian President Vladimir Putin (2nd row), and US President Barack Obama (3rd row) walk as they take part in an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) family photo inside the International Convention Center at Yanqi Lake in Beijing, Nov. 11, 2014.
Kaya Forest and Sierra Rayne, American Thinker: China and Russia combined now at military spending parity with US
Each year about this time, as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) releases its global military spending database, we hear the same refrain: the United States spends more than the next [insert your favorite large number here] countries combined.
How wrong these analyses are, and those who advocate for greater American defense expenditures should know better.
Comparing military spending among major powers using a common U.S. dollar metric is simply economic nonsense. Given that adversaries such as China and Russia, among others, have massive in-house arms manufacturing capabilities as well as expend great resources on indigenous operations and maintenance requirements, the correct means of comparison is on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis.
Read more ....
Update: Good News, Russia and China: The Great Shrinking of the US Military Is Here (Justin T. Johnson, National Interest)
WNU Editor: I am always sceptical of these reports. The U.S. may spend $600 billion on their military, but this does not include the intelligence budgets, the DOE's nuclear budget, and a whole bunch of other government programs and organizations. As for China's and Russia's defense budgets .... current economic hardships are resulting in decreasing military budgets .... not increasing.
3 comments:
The problem is that the current president is impotent when it comes to red lines. It doesnt matter if he spends double of russia or china if they have the political will to engage and u.s weaponary is like a shiny new SUV that the owner refuses to take off road.
Military spending is irrelevant, first off Russia was a socialist state meaning leading edge weapon designers wouldn't cost nearly as much as say the USA's top designers. Same would be true for China with its billions of workers political infrastructure and boarder disputes.
USA really only has two options, recruit overseas specialist by offering a "new life" filled with extravagant gifts. Or produce its own through its privatized educational institutes and pay them outrageous salary's.
Simple fact is a $ here isnt a $ there.
You probably havn't noticed, but the MIC/Pentagon program is the largest Socialist Program in history.
During the "mergers and aqquisitions" period of the '90's the Pentagon provided interest free loans for preferred Companies to buy out their compeditors, lay off workers and provide Golden Parachutes for the Exec's.
The reality isn't PPP, or "cheaper" weapons systems, the reality is waste, fraud and gold plated bricks for weapons systems, plus all the never ending wars, defines US Defence spending.
Post a Comment