Talk:List of countries by military expenditures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] IGNORANT

To say the EU has a rapid reaction force which allows a 200+ billion budget to be put up is absoultey nothing but an ego trip. That rapid reaction force does not get 200 billion in funding. It would'nt even get 1/20th of that. Your just standing there with a calculator and adding all the countries in the EU together which is simply dead wrong in all ways of looking at it. Considering that 200 billion is out of control of the EU leaders, its up the actual countries in Europe your contrbuting nothing but garbage. Your not adding the EU, your adding the continent of Europe with that number. I have no problem with the funding the rapid reaction force gets, which is the real information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.217.48 (talk • contribs).

Don't waste your breath; I've been trying to convince these two here of that same fact, but they remain bound to their pro-EU POV. Parsecboy 16:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't we add a note at the top of the page or near the EU entry, saying that the EU figure is the sum of its member states? It seems that a lot of people would like to see the EU in the list comparing with the other nations, as you can see by the many edits adding it back to the main list. --giandrea 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought that was just you and Eurocopter, again, not "a lot of editors". Parsecboy 14:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU has its own military

to say that NAFTA is the same as the EU is ignorant, the EU has a elected government and a capital (Brussels).Clearly non europeans don't know anything about the EU, the EU has a military and a headquarters, The Military Committee, and a rapid reaction force of 60.000 well trained troops, there is even european battle groups, The Eurocorps headquarters is based in Strasbourg near the French-German border. This comment was posted anonymously by 87.48.118.159, 12:11, 2 April 2007 (CET)

Well, it seems to me that it's not so much an EU military organization, but the separate national armies are trained in joint operations. We might as well put NATO on the list too. Show me an article that talks about the "European Army" or whatever you want to call it, and the entry can remain. If there are no serious objections within a couple days, I'm going to remove it from the list, see my point below. Parsecboy 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
First (to everybody who has discussed this), get a consensus before dumping information. Getting to the point of protecting this article for such a stupid trivial thing as one number would have been, well, stupid. Second, I setup a new table of "Supernational Entities." You can add whatever random organization you're able to name there. Hopefully this will end the problem. If anybody has an issues, please start a new talk subject at the bottom of the page, and DISCUSS it rather than reverting. I was asked here as a neutral editor, and I think it'd be great for me to be able to step away. Hunting through the unsorted list and adding these in a spreadsheet was raised my wikistress for something way too much for something so trite. Hopefully this works as a compromise for everyone. --Auto(talk / contribs) 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm good with the current version (NATO and EU split into separate table). Thanks for your help. Parsecboy 00:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine too, the problem is just one. there should actually be two figures for the EU. The one we are listing now is just the sum of the military expenditures of the member countries, and it's just a statistic not representing a single army. But the EU has what is seen as the embryo of a common EU army, the European Rapid Reaction Force (see also European Union battle groups), with it's special union founding, directly from the union budget. Where should we put this second figure, once we find it? --giandrea 01:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I would propose that it replace the current figure, as it would represent an actual European force that isn't controlled by the member states, and is a true superanational entity. The number should reflect how much money the member states contribute to that force and the European Defense Agency. The NATO figure should be similarly reduced, if we can find the appropriate figures. Parsecboy 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

what will happen when the EU gets its own constitution perhaps already in 2009, then it is one country whit states like the US, whit a elected president and a foreign minister. if a area gets a constitution its is a country no doubt about it. This comment was posted anonymously by 87.49.156.49, 10:58, 3 April 2007 (CET)

Please, note that the EU constitution has already been adopted by most of the EU countries. Once it will be ratified by all of the members of the EU, there will be a large area with a constitution, an official currency, a parliament and other institutions that will make the EU very similar to the definition of state. Then we can always discussing about the exact terms, but I think that it is significant to include the EU in lists of this kind.--giandrea 11:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should list the European Rapid Reaction Force because it is a quite small force with little military spendings. I would propose to add the spendings of the European Reaction Force to the existing military expenditures of the EU with a short note: "including European Rapid Reaction Force". Eurocopter tigre 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say then that Eurocopter's and my views on the matter are diametrically opposed. I would think the ERRF and EDA would be the only forces that should be listed under the EU, as the German Army is still the German army, and the British Royal Marines are still British, not part of some transnational force. They're already listed once as their own national militaries; they shouldn't be listed twice as part of the EU. It doesn't matter that it's a relatively "small force with little military spendings", because it is the only military force that is controlled wholely by the EU, not the constituent states. The constituent states' militaries are not the same thing as a combined EU military.Parsecboy 13:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If we list the EU forces two times in the article (EU and ERRF) I think we may create some confusion. I still support my opinion that we should list EU as the TOTAL military expenditures of all the constituent states + the ERRF. I also would say that Parsecboy's view is incorrect because the EU body with the greatest voice over the ERRF is the European Council. The European Council is composed of the nation-states that will individually contribute to the ERRF. I should remind that the ERRF consists of soldiers drawn from the Belgium, French, German, Luxemburguese and Spanish armies (member states). Eurocopter tigre 13:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the total sum of EU member countries should be listed at all. Sure, the ERRF is drawn from member states, but those member states don't control their contribution to the force, the European Council does, which is why it should be listed as the EU force. The EC doesn't control the Spanish Army or the Italian Army, therefore, they should not be included in the EU tally. The NATO figure as it stands is equally incorrect; the amount of money that the US is spending in Iraq is in no way related to NATO, but it is still included in that number. The tallies for the supranational organisations should only reflect the monies contributed to that organisation, not those spent elsewhere, but by member states. I.E., the amount of money the US contributes to UN missions, joint R&D, etc. The money France spends on the Foreign Legion, for example, should be ignored, because it is totally unrelated to the EU. Only the money a member state contributes to a common EU military structure (in this case, the ERRF and the EDC) should be counted. Parsecboy 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course that the member states don't control their contribution to the force, but they can withdraw it at any time they want. The NATO is not a state union, it is a military alliance so you shouldn't compare it with the EU. The money a member state contributes to the ERRF is part of the military budget of that state. The French Foreign Legion is within the French Army and the French Army is related to the EU. Eurocopter tigre 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Can the EU order the Foreign Legion to a specific deployment or mission? Parsecboy 14:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No, neither the EU can't order the French Army to a specific deployment or mission. The EU can request the French Government to participate to missions or deployments with the French Army or Foreign Legion, and of course, the Fr. Govern. will accept or deny the request. Eurocopter tigre 14:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
So we have established that the EU does not control the separate militaries of the constituent states. Thus, they are not a part of the European Union's military, and should not be included in the tally of European Union military expenditures. Parsecboy 15:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course the EU does not control the militaries of the constituent states, but the EU military expenditures should be listed as a statistical fact; frankly, sooner or later EU will have a unified army (as Angela Merkel declared in March 2007). I still support my opinion that we should keep the EU military expenditures + ERRF spendings added together for statistical purposes as it would represent the total military spendings of the EU(including constituent states).Eurocopter tigre 17:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If the militaries of the separate states are not controlled by the EU, then they are not part of the EU. Why is this hard to accept? The current figure, some 250 billion, isn't representative of anything other than a combined total for a region. If you're only argument is that it's a good statisical figure, we might as well add up all of the South American countries; it'd be about as relevant. The European countries might operate jointly, but they are totally independent of each other and the EU. The only figure listed should be that for the ERRF and EDC. Parsecboy 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
South America is not a state union and in the EU mil. exp. we added just the member countries, not "all of the European countries". Eurocopter tigre 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is not that South America is a political entity, just that a combined total is as useless as the current figure for EU, as it doesn't represent anything that actually exists. And when I said "all of the European countries", I was referring to those in the EU, not those who are not. I assumed this would be apparent. Parsecboy 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, Your argument that "sooner or later, the EU will have a unified army" is irrelevant. If "if's" and "but's" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas. The unified army doesn't exist. Parsecboy 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Clearly we will never agree each other in this case, the discussion between us is becoming useless. I think we shall wait for other opinions and maybe we will take a final decision(hopefully in the near future because this discussion seems to be endless). Eurocopter tigre 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that neither of us will agree on this matter. Perhaps it would be best to put in an RfC? Parsecboy 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I tottaly disagree with one of your latest comments: "as it doesn't represent anything that actually exists" - that means that in your opinion the EU doesn't exists.

Yes, I agree that we should put an RfC. Eurocopter tigre 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my previous comment. I didn't state that the EU doesn't exist. My point is that the combined European Army does not exist at the present, unless you count the ERRF and EDC. Parsecboy 18:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I agree that the EU does not have at the moment a unified European Army. So, will you put an RfC or should I take care of this? Eurocopter tigre 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
An RfC has been posted, and I created a section at the bottom of this page for the subject to be discussed, both by editors previously involved (mainly for us to present a short "summing up" of our arguments, so new editors don't have to read through dozens of comments here) and editors new to the discussion. Parsecboy 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that an RfC is needed because there is already consensus that the info should stay for statistical purposes. --giandrea 21:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What consensus? You and Eurocopter? That doesn't really count. Parsecboy 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, we are trying to get you into the discussion and find a compromise. We should really settle on something because things at this point can't really be one thing or the other. Let's reach an agreement. --giandrea 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Eurocopter and I have been discussing this all day long. I don't see either of us budging from our opinions on the matter. So far, we've established that the EU does not maintain it's own European Army, except for the ERRF and the EDC (which, to remind you, is what I recommend being the only components of what funding is tallied for the EU). We've also established that the EU holds no sway over the separate militaries of the member states; i.e., the EU cannot send, for example, the British RAF to bomb Tahiti. Therefore, from those two points, we can logically state that the only funding that should count towards the EU listing is that for the ERRF and EDC, not the separate states' militaries, because they are totally separate and unrelated to the EU government. Similarly, the US National Guard isn't a part of the US Army until it's been called up by the federal government; short of that, it's just an apparatus of the states. Also, there's the issue with counting the European states military budgets twice, which paints a highly unrealistic picture of the European defense complex. Parsecboy 01:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you to read the Wikipedia article about Consensus if you want to get out of this impasse? It is irrelevant what you have acknowledged if one party wants the EU entry to stay, and the other wants to reject it. Find a compromise. --giandrea 02:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The_Most_Important_Thing_Possible is starting to become relevant. Please read, laugh a little, and think about it some :) --Auto(talk / contribs) 04:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Giandrea, for being patronizing. I'm quite aware of how consensus works; the issue here is that at least one person wants the entry to remain as it is, the other wants it changed (I don't know what your position on the matter is, you haven't really participated in this discussion). That's sort of the whole point of the RfC; to get other editors to come to the article and weigh in on the issue. You keep saying we need to find a compromise. How is compromise possible? It's either one way or the other.
On a side note, since we now have the supranational entities table, why not toss in the UN? I'm sure we can track down the budget of UN peacekeeping forces. Or perhaps the African Union; they have their own peacekeeping forces as well. Any thoughts? Parsecboy 12:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussion should end as quickly as posible and no more idiotic comments should be posted. The EU remains there until we take a final decision and all the Resolving disputes stages will be fullfilled. Best Regards ,Eurocopter tigre 12:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand. And my position is still that the EU should be in the list of countries by military expenditures. That's what I've always said, if you read the discussion. --giandrea 13:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a question, Giandrea. Is the EU a country right now, today? No. Therefore, it does not belong on the list of countries by military expenditures. I thought we had a good compromise earlier, by moving it to the new "supranational military forces" table, but Eurocopter apparently doesn't like that. Parsecboy 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Autocracy let me ask you something, who made that compromise?? You and Parsecboy? As Parsecboy said "the opinion of two users doesn't really counts". I am going to leave it there for now because I'm wasting my time with this article and this discussion. I just want to remind that you have no right to move the EU from the place it initially was until the discussion it's over.... Eurocopter tigre 04:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Eurocopter, I don't appreciate it when other users put words in my mouth. I never said Giandrea's and your opinions don't count. I said two users don't count as a consensus, when there has been ample disagreement with your position, by myself and several other editors. Parsecboy 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't see those several other editors caring enough about this article to leave a comment. The consensus is decided here on the Talk Pages, therefore I think that the consensus is that the EU should stay in the list. --giandrea 15:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Giandrea, I direct your attention to the sections below this one, where several editors have argued that the EU should not be listed at all. May I also remind you that that is not my goal, only that the EU be listed not in the countries table, but in the supranational organizations one, preferably with only the funding listed for forces the EU actually controlls. Parsecboy 17:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to User:Daniel_Chiswick, then I must inform you that this user threatened me with false assertions... that's not really polite/fair, so you might consider some more civil editors to support your arguments... Anyway I propose to take a break and get back at the discussion after monday. --giandrea 18:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he is only one editor I was referring to, as well as User:Joelr31 and a couple anons. Regardless, I'm aware that Eurocopter is going on a holiday, so if one of the principal editors in this debate is out of the loop, it hardly makes sense to continue without him/her. I'm fine with taking a break until monday. I do have one question though; when Autocracy moved the EU to the new table, you said you were fine with that; is that still the case? I'd be willing to compromise here, and drop my objection to listing anything but the ERRF budget if we can agree to leave the EU in the new supranational table, not in the table of countries. If you are in touch with Eurocopter (and, of course, agreeable to this solution), run that by him/her, and we can be done with this. Thanks. Parsecboy 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Euro: the question was, "should the EU be listed?" The objection was "it's not a country." Currently, it's listed (solving problem a) and listed under a category describing it (supernatural entity). Throw in the EU, NATO, the African group... they all pass WP:N. Finally, I say I made a compromise to the issues of this talk page, not any individual editor. Have a good weekend, see you Monday --Auto(talk / contribs) 22:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

the Eu must stay in the country section, it is a country whit states and the constitution coming in 2009 will just undeline that, when the US in 1776 became a country many people then did not see the states as a country becouse it whas new, the same for the EU, now people still see france and germany and italy but that will chance and people will see it as one country as it is a very young country but a new country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.48.118.99 (talk • contribs).

Except...the EU is not yet a counry. It is still properly classified as a supranational organization and should remain in the appropriate table (though, by your logic, we should remove the separate states of Europe, apparently). You claim the constitution is coming in 2009. Has it been passed in France or the Netherlands yet? Have the several countries, such as UK and Poland restarted their referendum process? The only thing coming in 2009 is the next round of parliamentary elections, which means nothing, because the European Parliament has been around, in its current form, since 1981; no big changes going on here. IMHO, the EU is a long way off from becoming an actual country. Parsecboy 11:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

dont talk about France and Netherlands those 2 states are the only ones that said no to the constitution, 17 states already said yes so dont use that. Angela merkel the german cancler has already now a new constitution ready to 2009. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.49.155.158 (talk • contribs).

Except, for the constitution to go inte effect, ALL member states have to ratify it, so if France and the Netherlands don't approve it, there is no European Union constitution in 2009. End of story. What about countries like the UK, Poland, Portugal, etc. that have put their referendum processes on hold indefinitely? Oh, and sign your posts. Parsecboy 14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU IS NOT A COUNTRY

The Eu is not a country so stop with the false information. Even the number you give is dead wrong as defense is under the control of a government..Someone simply took a calculator and added the countries of Europe together. Things dont work that way, so stop with the european ego trip!

The EU is just a figure and it should be added for statistical purposes. In case we want to further clarify, we can add a note. --giandrea 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's a simple way to end this argument: The name of the article is "List of countries by military expenditures". Is the EU a country? No. End of discussion. Parsecboy 20:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the lead sentence from the Military of the European Union article:


The European Union is not a state and does not have its own dedicated military forces.


Why, then, does it belong on the list? Giandrea states that "[it] is just a figure, and should be added for statistical purposes"; well, we can cobble together any list of countries that have military alliances and stick them on the list as well, and it will be just as irrelevant. Parsecboy 23:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SIPRI

Can someone update the list using the official statistics of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute? These are the figures used by most of the European defence ministries, including the British Ministry of Defence.

According to SIPRI, the top five spenders are:

(1) US (2) UK (3) China (4) France (5) Japan

[edit] European Union

The E.U. is not a country and does not have a military like real nation states. Lately there has been a European bias on wikipedia where the E.U. is listed on all positive lists like GDP, GDP per capita, and military expenditures but not negative things like national debt, which the E.U. would undoubtedly be ranked #1. The E.U. was never ranked until about a week ago when some european on an ego trip decided to add it. Also the E.U. is not listed on the CIA world factbook list of countries by military expenditures and since the only reason the E.U. is even ranked on things like GDP is because it is given an "If ranked" in the CIA world factbook, and since the E.U. is not listed in the CIA world factbook it should not be listed here. User:Daniel_Chiswick 14 March, 2007

Your right the Eu should not be put up, however you are wrong about a few things. The US has a much better gdp percapita than the EU and a gdp that is the same and growing twice as fast


Stop adding the E.U., it is not on any official lists and whoever is adding it is because they have some sort of ego trip. The E.U. was never listed and just because you added up all the military expenditures of the 27 E.U. members that doesn't mean that it belongs on here. User:Daniel_Chiswick 23 March, 2007

P.S. Do not even waste your time adding it again because I will delete it because it is vandalism, and if you continue I will request that this article be locked. User:Daniel_Chiswick 23 March, 2007

The EU should be here not ranked, as a figure of the total spending of its country members, I'm for keeping it. A note should be added that it's just a figure on the line of the note on the page List of countries by population. --giandrea 03:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep it because this represents the estimate for the European Union calculated by adding up the military expenditures of its 27 Member States.I see no problem to keep it as long as is not ranked (USA:1, EU:-, UK:2). There is also a solid source about the EU military expenditures at the end of the article. Eurocopter tigre 11:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree we should keep it not ranked for satistical purposes. --giandrea 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No the E.U. should not be here because the ONLY reason it is even mentioned on lists on wikipedia is it is mentioned on official lists on certain things like GDP. The E.U. is not ranked on any offical lists by military expenditure so it should not be here. When people say the E.U. should not be ranked on any lists pro-europeans say the same thing every time, "It is not our decision as to what is included in the lists", well the E.U. is not included on any lists so it has no business here at all. Just because you found a calculator and decided to add up the amount of money the 27 members of the E.U. spend on their military doesn't mean that it should be on wikipedia. Does the E.U. have an army? No. Does the E.U. have a navy? No. Does the E.U. have an airforce? No. I don't care if the E.U. is closer than other non-countries to being a country, that still doesn't make it a country. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and no matter what you say the E.U. is not a country and at the moment is is very far from becoming one, if ever. Calling shit feces doesn't change the fact that it is still shit. User:Daniel_Chiswick 23 March, 2007.

Please stop adding the E.U., it has no right to be here unless it is listed on a offical list and since it is not it has no business here. User:Daniel_Chiswick 24 March, 2007

It doesn't matter if you add up all the 27 member's military expenditures because in order for it to be on here it needs to be sourced and ranked on a offical list. That is the ONLY reason why the E.U. is ranked on things like GDP because it is on lists like the CIA world factbook, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund list it. The E.U. is not listed anywhere else and on offical lists of countries by military expenditures the E.U. is not even mentioned so it should not be mentioned here, It is not wikipedia's decision as to what is included in the lists User:Daniel_Chiswick 25 March, 2007

I would not consider use of a calculator original research. The nature of the EU implies that its military forces may act as a singular unit in some instances. Regardless of that, the nature of it to be considered its own entity in many other areas seems to advocate doing so here. Please stop removing this data until you have a consensus for removal. Currently, you do not have that consensus. --Auto(talk / contribs) 00:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The EU is not a country. No matter how many twist and turns are given the fact remains that it is not a country therefore, by definition, it does not belong in this list. Joelito (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources other than the CIA Factbook

Personally I think secondary sources should be used (with references noted, obviously) for countries not mentioned in the CIA Factbook - omitting Russia, for example, seems rather silly. The name of the article suggests a complete list of the expidentures of all the militaries of the world, and I think the article should reflect that. MMad 20:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I hope another column on "Source" can be added to the table. But meanwhile, you can update the table and list the reference under the column "Date of information". --Vsion 22:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm seems like a valid source

I think it would be good to have several sources either as a new column or a different list - this is like other articles such as the GDP list which shows both IMF and world bank figures -- Astrokey44|talk 08:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

add up de millitary expenditures of all the eu members and than you will find it

[edit] relinking

I think the wiki links for each country should point to the articles about their militaries (like Military of South Korea) instead of the countries themselves. It makes more sense, considering this article is about their military budgets.--KrossTalk 07:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

The expenditure figures for Japan (and China) need updating so that there is compariable data for the top 5. David 22:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia?!

Come on, Russia has to be added to this list. It will probably be in the top 5 or so. And can we get more accurate figures for Japan and France please? David 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Russia's military budget varies greatly depending on the source but according to the US DoD it is the second highest in the world at $65 billion USD [1]. Edrigu 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why so much?

What I want to know is why Switzerland, Australia, Luxembourg, and Sweden spending so much money on defense? They do nothing much militarily, do they?

Australia was a major contributor to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as well as other conflicts and has to spend a lot of money on military anti-terrorism measures due to its northern neighbour Indonesia. As for the other countries, just because they don't go invading other countries every 5 minutes doens't mean they don't like to be able to defend themselves and contribute to peacekeeping. Are you american by any chance?--Joe 1987 17:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as Sweden goes: The foreign policy of Sweden is based on the premise that national security is best served by staying free of alliances in peacetime in order to remain a neutral country in the event of war. In order for the foreign policy to be credible to the outside, it used to be deemed necessary for a perhaps "unusually" large military for a country the size of Sweden and which has not been to war or civil war since 1814. Today, there is a trend for the military expenditures to decline. Martin Ulfvik 02:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd place

Why are UK and Russia joint 3rd place?--Joe 1987 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Russia doesn't have a rank on this article at the moment as we need a correct figure for its defence budget first. However, it would be around the 3rd/4th position. David 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better sources needed

Sorry people, the CIA World factbook is not a very reliable source when it comes to many matters, but especially this one. A lot of these figures are estimates (even if they haven't been stated as such); for example, the figure given for France is $45 billion, but the French embassy says the current year's budget is $41.5 billion. Official government figures would be more reliable and, I firmly believable, more desirable. Continuing with the theme of gross inaccuracy, Britain does not spend $58 billion. That's a ridiculous figure; French military spending is actually slightly higher than that of the British. The three largest defense spenders in the world are America, China, and France, and seeing how they are all in militaristic streaks involving significant procurement objectives, that is unlikely to change in upcoming years. Russia in no way spends $50 billion annually on defense; that's another astounding and ridiculous number. Russia is no financial position to spend that much. From Global Security:

"2005 Budget

Defense appropriations emerged as the top priority in the draft budget approved 23 August 2004 by the Russian cabinet. Military spending is due to rise to 528 billion rubles ($18 billion - $1 is about 29 rubles) in 2005, up 28 percent from last year's 411 billion rubles ($14 billion). The nominal defense budget stays at a level of 2.6% to 2.7% of GDP. Years of neglect and under-funding have left the Russian forces in desperate need of extra funds. For 2005 the military was supposed to spend 146 billion rubles [$5 billion] for modernization.

The 2005 budget continues to compensate for these lean times. The increase appears very large, but these numbers -- over 25 percent -- do not take inflation into account. Inflation up to now in Russia has been considerable. The government says that inn 2005 they will be able to lower it below 10 percent annually, but it's not clear if they will be successful. So in reality, the increase in defense spending is around 15 percent.

A specific feature of the 2005 budget was a significant increase in defense spending (by 27.7% compared with this year), and in spending on national security and law-enforcement activities (by 26%). Without any problems, the 2005 budget was approved by deputies in its fourth and final reading and then submitted to the Federation Council, which supported the budget at a special session on 10 December 2004. Although the Russian military remains at a fraction of its former strength, training rates and defense spending were increasing."


I'm glad that there are warnings, but I think they should be more pronounced and incisive. There is much that is wrong with many of these numbers.UberCryxic 01:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the United Kingdom figure is correct. The defence budget for the UK government in the financial year 2005/06 is £33.3 billion, which is an accurate and correct figure. This amounts to $58.6 billion using the average exchange rate over the past year between the pound and dollar. If you think this figure is too high then maybe your knowledge of the world is rather weak. The United Kingdom has the world's fifth largest GDP (the order currently goes: USA, Japan, Germany, China, UK, France) and so having the 3rd or 4th largest defence expenditure is about right (especially when you consider that Germany and Japan do not have nuclear weapons or carrier naval forces). The % of GDP spent on defence in the UK is a mere 2.7% which is far lower than the % of GDP spent on the military in the USA or China for example. France's figure is sometimes quoted as being higher than the United Kingdom's but it includes paramilitary forces, which the UK does not have. Actual defence spending in France is similar, perhaps slightly less, than for the United Kingdom.
What needs to be updated and verified are the figures for Russia, Japan and China. David 13:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the comment about my knowledge of the world, but I think I can let it go. Anyway, I should clarify that obviously America, Britain, and France-in that order-have the world's best militaries. That's almost unquestionable. I took a second look, and the figure for Britain is correct. My quarrel came because I saw a source which said French defense spending as a percentage of its GDP was 2.6%, but the British only at 2.4%, which would make the two about equal in light of Britain's larger GDP. Also, as you mentioned, many sources put French spending higher than that of the British. I have seen the number you cited (2.7%), but only in the late 1990s. The Russian figure is, however, wrong. I suspect the Chinese figure is wrong too; most estimates I've seen put it at $40 billion to $65 billion.UberCryxic 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oook I went back to find the source; it was NATO (see here). For 2005, France spent 2.5% of its GDP on defense whereas the UK spent 2.3%. It should be noted, however, that NATO has different standards from measuring military spending than the governments themselves. This is what probably caused the confusion.UberCryxic 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone check the figures here so we have something consistent. In the beginning of the article, it is said that "Most of the information is from The World Factbook, CIA", which is mostly true, with the noteworthy exception of the UK, which is said to have a budget of 58,600,000,000$, whereas the CIA World Factbook gives 42,836,500,000$. 82.234.182.51 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


CIA numbers makes no sense.

I dont know where CIA is getting its data, but its more than ridiculous (I really don´t know a word big enough for this kind of stupidity) How could it be that countries without an army spend several millions on military? so what the hell are they calculating? You can compare the data against the list of countries with no army: Haiti: 26,000,000, Disbanded on June, 1995. Mauritius: 12,500,000, no army since 1968. Costa Rica: 64,200,000, no army since 1949. Panama: 147,000,000, Abolished their army in 1990.

After someone can prove where we have the tank parked i will erase my country from the list. User:Mauvarca


CIA is crap

CIA dose not keep up with the year it say france spends 45,000,000,000 for 2005 but uk spends 42,836,500,000 for 2003 they are not up to date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esau sleiman (talk • contribs).

[edit] Military Expenditures per Capita

Anyone interested in creating a list that would show this data per capita? I think it's worth it! June 11, 2006.

[edit] Eritrean Military spending

While it definitely isn't much compared to, say, the U.S. in absolute terms, most almanacs list Eritrea as having the highest military spending as a percentage of GDP. 205.188.117.69 03:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries by military expenditures

Yes, that's been added to the article; what about it? Ryūlóng 00:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding it here means nothing. Talk to us. Tell us what you want to do. You will be blocked if you repeat this information. Ryūlóng 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop using that CIA factcarp.And use some wikipedia thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esau sleiman (talk • contribs).

CIA is the reliable source for this information; and that is the final say on what is used in this article, unless you can provide updated sources. Ryūlóng 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
it is not a reliable source because not just some but a lot of it is old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esau sleiman (talk • contribs).
There is a difference between an old source and a Wikipedia:Reliable source. Read the guidelines at the page I have just linked. Ryūlóng 00:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
you are a smart person and you know what you are talk about but wikipekia have better source. And there is a big difference because I know france and japan do not spend more than UK because for france and japan there military spending is for 2005 to me that is reliable. But for the UK it is for 2003 dude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esau sleiman (talk • contribs).
If you can give a new source that shows all updated information, then we will update the list. But your edits, and those of the anonymous IP are harmful. Ryūlóng 00:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have two source on is one is wikipedia of all of the militarys of the world and the other is global issues.And they are a lot better than CIA. Esau Sleiman

Wikipedia cannot be a source to itself, nor can other Wikipedias be sources for this one. The CIA is a more available and reliable source in all of these situations. Ryūlóng 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In CIA a lot of the military spending is old some from 2002 and 2003 they can be right in those years but not now. To me and other Global Issues is mor e reliable and up to date. Esau Sleiman

Actually, the CIA's page is updated; however the article is protected from editting now because of the actions of yourself and the IP editor. Ryūlóng 02:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

dude my sorry but I seen that crap about three years ago and I am telling you it old. And the list that shows all of the military spending is shit because some person changed the years around do not mean a thing. If you ate going to change it than put some thing new on. Esau Sleiman

Have you seen all of this: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html? It looks updated to me. Complete with figures only a year old. Ryūlóng 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Even Sao Tome and Principe has 2005 figures. I will get someone to change it so it can be helped. And please keep cool. Ryūlóng 02:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude my not trying to be a asshole but the thing you had on before was right. Because I know that not just a little bit but a lot of it is old not just a year but two or three. And I know that the uk spends more than France and japan. And I know Japan spends more than France. I do not have a thing about France but I know they ate third. Esau Sleiman

When will it be fixed Esau Sleiman

I do not know. I have asked an administrator to look into this. Ryūlóng 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

dude where you the one that change it to CIA. Esau Sleiman

Just wait. Everything will be updated, and it will be from the CIA since that is a reliable source. You haven't given us your sources, so we do not know what else there is. Ryūlóng 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude I have give you source. Try this website www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp Esau Sleiman

just go to the website of global issues and the source will be more reliable. Esau Sleiman

Admin note: When consensus is reached on updates to the page, a request can be made to edit the protected page. You might try working out an agreeable text here and then making the request. This request should not be made by an individual editor trying to advance his/her point of view. — ERcheck (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That list is way too small to be used on Wikipedia. The CIA is a much better resource in this case. Ryūlóng 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

why is it better where does CIA get it facks at can you tell me so I know it is reliable I would love to know. Esau Sleiman

what no answer to why it is better than the source I gave you. Esau Sleiman

The United States Central Intelligence Agency is a much better resource than that website you have provided. Ryūlóng 02:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not use it than that CIA crap. But you still have not answer me bro I'm not trying to make you mad. Why is CIA better than the thing a give you. Esau Sleiman

Because it is a government agency, and not a commercial website. Ryūlóng 02:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And it provides much more information that what you gave. Ryūlóng 02:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok do not use it all just a the military list. But you have not answer me why is CIA a good source. And do not give a few anrswer. Esau Sleiman

if you cant switch CIA then put in something new . and if you cant answer my question that means CIA is not a reliable source. Esau Sleiman

The main role of Central Intelligence Agency is to gather information about foreign governments and their militaries and to report back to the various branches of the United States Government. They're not exactly amatuers at this seeing as the Military budget of the United States is formulated in response to their intelligence and they've been at it since the end of World War II. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

how cia fact more reliable then that those facts that i gave you esau sleiman

Do you not read our responses? The CIA is more official than anything else. It's a government agency. Not a non-profit organization. Ryūlóng 03:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

so if CIA is a government agency and Global Issues is a government agency why not use it. But what I want to know how do you they are both government agencys. Esau Sleiman.

Global Issues is not a government agency. The CIA is, because it is the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Before you continue to ask why we cannot use Global Issues, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. Ryūlóng 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

the source I gave you is not governemt agency but CIA is. Is CIA more reliable than SIPRI. But still The facts on CIA are old A lot of is from two to three years and older. Esau Sleiman

Yes, CIA is more reliable than SIPRI, and the facts on CIA's site are only a year old, the facts on Wikipedia are older, though. Ryūlóng 04:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you read http://www.globalissues.org/about/who/ yet? "I am Anup Shah, the editor of this web site...I maintain this site at my own cost and in my spare time, on my own." Now take a careful look at http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp and note the multiple sources being referred to on the same page: "Some of the above statistics come from organizations such as the Center for Defense Information, and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation." From the graph, we can't tell which source Shah used for each figure. We don't even know if all the sources he's using are even using the same criteria for measuring expenditure! The figures being released by a national intelligence apparatus would much more likely be uniformly measured and thus more accurate! --  Netsnipe  ►  04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

yes I looked at the list of military spending it looks more reliable than CIA. esau sleiman

like I said before I seen CIA list before it is old. Esau Sleiman.

The CIA list is not old. The information on Wikipedia is old, though, and before this list was disrupted, we would have been able to update it from the new information released by the CIA. Ryūlóng 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If is say UK, Germany military Spending is from 2003. that tells me and a lot other people that come to this website it is old and needs to be updated. Esau Sleiman.

Why does it say UK, Germany military spending at 2003 Esau Sleiman

Check this site for the updated information. Right now, no one can edit the article to update the information on this site (Wikipedia). Ryūlóng 05:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think because it says every thing on is 2005 it is right. ciclk on uk or germany and they will say 2003 for military spending. Esau Sleiman

It's as updated as the CIA is going to get. When they update, we update. Ryūlóng 05:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ciclk on UK and see it military spending it will say 2003 that is not update. Esau Sleiman

Please stop pushing this. The CIA is our reliable source in this area, however old the figures are or not. If you continue to make these edits, you may be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 05:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

dude who the hell are you to do that do me because you put some crap on this website and people come to this website to learn things and you put bullshit on it. it take people me to fixs it and people like to fuck it up. did you make this website. If block me I'm just going keep coming on every thing dude you can't do shit about it. Esau Sleiman

You are now being extremly incivil now. Unfortunately, this article had to be protected from disruption, and the most reliable source we have about this information may be a little outdated, but that does not mean that you have to badmouth anyone related to it. I am trying to help you. And please sign your posts by typing this symbol "~" four times in a row. Ryūlóng 05:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

dude this what my say you find new than CIA or you can read a lot other up and see people say cia is not right. And if you block me I'm going what have been. and you can not stop. Esau Sleiman

There is nothing reliable that is newer. We have to use the CIA as our resource. Ryūlóng 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

SIPRI is newer and more Reliable allright. Esau sleiman

No, it is not. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then tell me why it is reliable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Ryūlóng 05:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On the CIA list it says it needs to updated. Esau sleiman

Please don't abuse the ":]" symbols. They're for wiki-formatting and for crying out loud, please learn to sign your talk message posts the Wikipedia way (using 4 ~ symbols in a row) and learn to use edit summaries. You look like a fool for not being able to follow such a simple request repeated, many, many times. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

dude do I do give a shit. Esau Sleiman

You should. Now stop doing these things, and just do what we tell you. If you continue to edit in this way, you will be blocked. Ryūlóng 05:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, the CIA is used as a source for nearly everything else on Wikipedia because it is reliable and using it keeps WP consistent in its sources. Changing it here would mean a major overhaul over a lot of pages. It's much better just to keep it with the CIA. -- the GREAT Gavini 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

I thought Japan didn't even have an army, how come they rank 4th in military expenditure195.229.41.163 07:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Beavis

Japan has a huge military. Edrigu 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The number is deceptive as Japan has a larger national budget than most countries due to the greater GDP. The article of Military budget of the People's Republic of China has relative expenditures and Japan's budget is less than half of what UK spends. If Japan increase spending to UK level, it will be around 100 billion dollar rather than current 40 billion dollar. So the fact that Japan is at 4th is not that Japan has a huge military but everyone else is overspending and dropping Japan from 2nd spot.--Revth 05:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britain

People keep putting in $64 billion for some reason. Can I have a source for this? This seems way too high for the British.UberCryxic 23:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

dude most of the sources you have is from CIA they are out of date. I got it from this website. (esau sleiman)

[edit] Azerbaijan

According to Azerbaijani goverment the military expenditures will be 796.8412 million AZN thats about 900 milion USD. It has been announced by Today.Az news source, see here. Could somebody perhaps edit this. Baku87 09:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Netherlands

According to the Dutch Ministry of Defence the military budget for 2006 is € 7,768,660. With a conservative exchangerate of 1.25 US Dollars per Euro of 1.25 that is about $9,700,000 http://www.defensie.nl/binaries/02%20Vaststelling%20van%20de%20begrotingsstaten%20van%20het%20Ministerie%20van%20Defensie_tcm15-27603.pdf

[edit] Canada vs. Russia

I am from canada and I find it hard to believe that russia only spends twice as much as we do. For the love of god, we wanted to help the US in afghanistan and we didn't have enough planes to transport our troops down there. Are these figures corrected for purchasing power parity? also what is military expenditure? If DARPA gives MIT $20 million for research is that military expenditure? maybe we should clear this up before trying to compile a full list of country's military expenditure Paskari 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I write something in wiki so sorry if it is not in the correct format, also I an not familiar with html and i an not a native speaker: Paskari you have a point. The one thing about this list is we just look the budget number and exchange it into Dollar, thats just wrong. We should wrtite something about the fact that there are different currency, people get paid different in every country and there is a differents between voluntarily forces and country where you have to serve. Examples: Austria, in 2000/2001 dollar/euro was something like 1:1 so 1,5 Mrd Euro were 1,5 Mrd. $ but now also the budget has since grown about 300 Million to 1,81 Mrd Euros if you look at the Dollar figure it stands at 1:1,29 so it becomes 2,33 Mrd $. The other problem is that in China for example the people who work in the millatary industry or as a uniformed person get paid far less as there US-counterparts, so everything is cheaper there. At the begining of this articel these problems should be adresse! Source for Austrian Budget: link title Prometheus25 14:56, 20 January 2007 (MET)

[edit] A few changes need to be made

In 2005, this was the military spending for the top 6 militaries of Latin America (in USD):

  • Brazil
  • Colombia
  • Chile
  • Mexico
  • Argentina
  • Venezuela

13.2 billion

6.3 billion

3.8 billion

3.1 billion

1.7 billion

1.4 billion



Source: [2]

[edit] contradicting information about britsh expendidture

on this page it says the expenditure was 64 billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_armed_forces

Some prats keep changing the figures to far too high ones. The real figure is 33.4 billion pounds a year, which is roughly 65 billion dollars at current exchange rates. David 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq/Afghanistan

Can someone answer the question whether the roughly $400-500 billion listed as the US "defense budget" includes spending, submitted as "supplemental budgets" to Congress, for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (currently about $8 billion per month: yes, per month)?

Also, note that the US figure does not include the roughly $6 billion per year Dept of Energy spends on maintaining our nuclear weapons stockpiles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jselanikio (talk • contribs) 11:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] RfC on EU and NATO figures

[edit] Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

My position is that only the funding contributed towards the ERRF and the supporting agencies should be included, as the other option would effectively list the European member countries twice. It would also falsely represent the military of the European Union, as the separate member states' militaries are not in any way affiliated or controlled by the EU apparatus. The same standard should hold true for the NATO figure as well.Parsecboy 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


My position is that we should add the spendings of the European Rapid Reaction Force to the existing military expenditures of the EU with a short note: "including ERRF". The EU body with the greatest voice over the ERRF is the European Council. The European Council is composed of the nation-states that will individually contribute to the ERRF. The ERRF consists of soldiers drawn from the Belgium, French, German, Luxembourgish and Spanish armies (member states).NATO is not a state union, it is a military alliance so it shouldn't be compared with the EU. The money a member state contributes to the ERRF is part of the military budget of that state. The adding of the EU in this list has also a major statistical importance. Eurocopter tigre 19:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion we should both add the EU, as as sum of its member agencies, and the EU ERRF, as only the costs of the military corps directly funded by the EU. The European Union, 50 years after its creation, is becoming an important single voice that needs to be included in lists of this kind, both for democratic and statistical importance. --giandrea 14:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements by new editors

I think you guys live for conflict. I was asked in as a neutral editor earlier this week, and in an effort to stop the edit war that continued after I joined, I created a new table in the article as a hopeful compromise to the EU listing. I figure the information to be useful as a reference, and there are many who contend listing it in the national table is not appropriate. I don't understand why somebody has felt that needed to be reverted.

Extra information in here isn't an issue; even national entries have trouble with direct comparisons. Just add it all in, and we can debate if it actually gets to be a long list. --Auto(talk / contribs) 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_countries_by_military_expenditures_9910.html"