Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military The Almighty Buck

World Military Expenditure Passes $2 Trillion for First Time (sipri.org) 89

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
World military spending continued to grow in 2021, reaching an all-time high of $2.1 trillion. This was the seventh consecutive year that spending increased. From a report: "Even amid the economic fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic, world military spending hit record levels," said Dr Diego Lopes da Silva, Senior Researcher with SIPRI's Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. "There was a slowdown in the rate of real-terms growth due to inflation. In nominal terms, however, military spending grew by 6.1 per cent." As a result of a sharp economic recovery in 2021, the global military burden -- world military expenditure as a share of world gross domestic product (GDP) -- fell by 0.1 percentage points, from 2.3 per cent in 2020 to 2.2 per cent in 2021. US military spending amounted to $801 billion in 2021, a drop of 1.4 per cent from 2020. The US military burden decreased slightly from 3.7 per cent of GDP in 2020 to 3.5 per cent in 2021. US funding for military research and development rose by 24 per cent between 2012 and 2021, while arms procurement funding fell by 6.4 per cent over the same period. In 2021 spending on both decreased. However, the drop in R&D spending (-1.2 per cent) was smaller than that in arms procurement spending (-5.4 per cent).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World Military Expenditure Passes $2 Trillion for First Time More

World Military Expenditure Passes $2 Trillion for First Time

Comments Filter:

  • This article is pointless without context.

    • This article is pointless without context.

      What? The context is in the summary.

      "There was a slowdown in the rate of real-terms growth due to inflation. In nominal terms, however, military spending grew by 6.1 per cent."

      Are you hoping someone will draw you a diagram that explains the ramifications of increased military spending vis-a-vis AGW, or what?

      • Im just waiting for the phrase 'Military Industrial Complex' to make its appearance. Guess it was me this time.

        • If you really wanna get people riled up call it the deep state :)

          It wouldn't be entirely wrong, either, since corporations are clearly running things. The deep state is more or less real, but it's almost exactly the opposite of what the people who use that phrase think it is. It's not liberal, though it's not even exactly conservative. It's just about money, and it loves when those people worship the organizations that they not only profit from supplying, but also which exist largely to keep the same people

          • deep state MIC. Sure.. they work together... but you can throw in a whole slew of other interests into the Deep State

            • meh.. slashdot edited out the 'not equals' above.

            • Corporations and the wealthy ARE the so-called deep state. Not figuratively, not kind of, but literally and completely. They write legislation, they provide the money that gets people elected to pass it, they spend the money lobbying necessary to get it passed, and they rotate people between government and corporate positions as necessary. The MIC is only the largest portion of this, as evinced by how much corporate welfare they get (in their case, mostly in the form of unnecessary military spending.) The M

    • Re:What's the point of this posting? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2022 @09:21AM (#62480800)

      This article is pointless without context.

      What context are you expecting?

      TFA makes it clear the record nominal military spending is due to inflation, and there has been no real increase.

      The gross world product is about $87 trillion, so the $2T in military spending is 2.3%.

      Americal military spending is $800B, 40% of the total, a slight decrease when adjusted for inflation.

      • Ours is 40% because europe doesnt have an acceptable sized military to defend itself from batshit crazies like the Russian Federation or China. Every military operation from Nato to the UN for the past 35 years has a vastly disproportionate number of US troop/equipment contribution compared to all the others combined. Thats why ours is 40% of our GDP. I really wish the EU would make for a rival level of armed forces.

        • Thats why ours is 40% of our GDP.

          You likely mean 40% of discretionary budget , the US GDP is around $21T and we spend around 3.2% of that for defense.

        • defend itself from batshit crazies like the Russian Federation or China.

          China has no ability or reason to attack Europe.

          Russia couldn't take Kiyv. They are no danger to Warsaw, much less the rest of Europe.

          If there is one clear lesson from the Ukraine war, we WAY over-estimated Russian military capacity. Now that we know the truth, we can scale way back on military spending in Europe because we now know there is little threat.

          Thats why ours is 40% of our GDP.

          No. Ours is 40% of WORLD military spending. It is nowhere near 40% of America's GDP. It is about 3%.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by khchung ( 462899 )

      The point is to make you afraid.

      • I am not afraid, but the situation is somewhat concerning.

        Until now the world was getting more and more peaceful. It is now apparent there are a significant number of people who don't want that. And some of them have power.

      • Afraid? I'm afraid this post just makes me a bit sad. Sad that poor people have to join the military in order to get an education, sad that a lot of veterans will end up homeless and mentally ill, sad that governments that are supposedly short of cash for education and healthcare can still afford to finance expensive weapons programmes that will never be used...

        • Sad that poor people have to join the military in order to get an education

          The don't unless they want to. 20 states have free community college programs and another 10 offer other college programs. Not to mention Pell Grants and other grants for people that need financial help. If you need training along with room, board, medical, etc there is also the Job Corps [jobcorps.gov] without the military commitment. Also, I consider a four year commitment in the military with 100% tuition coverage a respectable education choice. There are plenty of job placement opportunities for veterans.

          sad that a lot of veterans will end up homeless and mentally ill

          Yes, the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by genixia ( 220387 )

      $2T / 7B = $285 for every man, woman and child on this planet - including the large number that exist on less than a dollar a day.

      Enough context?

    • Msmash posted it. Nuff said.

  • So... opposite? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2022 @09:18AM (#62480778) Homepage
    So the headline appears to be opposite the point of the summary. Yes, it's hit $2T, but actual percent of GDP is down? So this is really just a story about inflation. However, given the general trend of the US population wanting to be less involved in overseas conflicts (Ukraine notwithstanding) we're likely to see slight decreases in US military spending over the next decade and a ramping up of spending in other countries who need to fill in some of the "policing" that the US has been doing of international ocean trade routes around the world. The US is now less dependent on international trade, particularly energy, than it has been in a long time. The extra spending from Australia recently (nuclear subs and cruise missiles) was specifically to extend their influence into the Indian ocean where China ships the majority of its incoming oil from the middle east. Overall this is all going to lead to a more volatile world, for sure. Countries are seeing that, and arms spending in 2022 is likely to be significantly higher than the 2021 numbers in real terms, not just inflationary terms.

    • So the headline appears to be opposite the point of the summary. Yes, it's hit $2T, but actual percent of GDP is down? So this is really just a story about inflation.

      Tell us you didn't understand the summary (which explicitly addresses inflation) without telling us you didn't understand the summary

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by RobinH ( 124750 )
        I saw that in the summary, so I just don't understand why they'd write the title to be the opposite point of the summary. Just for clicks? Oh, I see it's by msmash, so yes, just for clicks.

        • Slashdot has always had this tendency, but it's become way worse under BX. Good times were had by all. Say, isn't it time for another story about cryptocurrency?

          • Oh fucking shit that's hilarious.

            I wrote my comment with the word "B i z X" (spaces removed) and it didn't pass the lameness filter.

            They are literally trying to prohibit dissent on this site now.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by kunwon1 ( 795332 )
              Have you seen the spam on this site when you browse without filters? On some articles, half of the comments are just spam about that company. If I were trying to setup a low-effort filter to get rid of some of the noise, I'd probably do something similar

              • Have you seen the spam on this site when you browse without filters?

                Yes.

                On some articles, half of the comments are just spam about that company.

                So what? I don't see most of them, because I don't browse without filters, except when I'm trying to find some comment that's been modded down unjustly.

                If I were trying to setup a low-effort filter to get rid of some of the noise, I'd probably do something similar

                Same if you were trying to get rid of some of the dissent against poor management.

    • So the headline appears to be opposite the point of the summary.

      No. The headline says "World Military Expenditure Passes $2 Trillion for First Time". The very first sentence of the summary says "World military spending continued to grow in 2021, reaching an all-time high of $2.1 trillion."

      2.1 is greater than 2. The headline accurately states what's in the summary.

      Yes, it's hit $2T, but actual percent of GDP is down?

      Percent of GDP is a different measure which is also given in the summary. You can't write a headline which contains all the information in the article; that would require posting the article itself as a headli

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RobinH ( 124750 )
        Fair enough. As much as I support NATO countries supplying arms into Ukraine to push back against Russia's completely unjustified war of aggression, I also can't help thinking that a lot of the punditry I see on US news cheerleading the effort must be funded by the US military/industrial complex. One way or another, they'll find a way to sell their wares.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Specifically in Asia, other countries ramping up their own military spending could hardly replace the US's presence to any meaningful amount. Sure, Australia is a country more or less as wealthy as ours when looking at them in a per capita context, their population is less then 10% of ours though. This sub purchase is probably not indicative of more purchases to come, it's likely what they can afford right now. Most of the other countries in the region are pretty poor and if Japan couldnt get rid of the pac

  • We can get this from the GAO, why is it here?

  • I read some time ago (even before the whole thing with Ukraine began) that military conflicts are just another financial instrument that public and private sector alike use to increase production of things of all sorts. Firstly, you've got all the spending for weapons. Then, you've got to rebuild what you turned into ruin. War is just overall good for business.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      They don't call it the Military Industrial Complex for nothing. 8^)

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: War is just good for business (Score:4, Insightful)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2022 @10:28AM (#62480982)
      Its deficit spending. People havent gone on rations and cut back expenses since World War II. Back then everyone sacrificed for the war effort. Since korea we just deficit spend and use inflation to wipe out that debt. Its we the people that suffer that system when inflation grossly outpaces wage increases. Many things have gone up 70% since april last year. Many food items have gone up 20% in just 60 days. Thats not good for the people. Maybe the government contractors but not the people. By the time $15 becomes the effective minimum wage, as in without even making a law thats the average wage that anybody is even willing to work for, $15 will be eligible for food stamps. This is a snowball.
      • I would not blame the current inflationary cycle on Ukraine specifically. It has contributed, but the seeds of inflation have been growing for years, I think since 08. Firstly, the fed has been printing money since 2008 with interest rates way way way too low during the entire period. Then covid happened and the fed printed at an astounding rate. Effectively the world(everyone was doing it, not just the US) thought they could just print money instead of have people work. I thought at the time probably the r
        • Inflation is caused by deficit spending. Whether thats war spending or paying for college studies to see if primates get depressed after masturbating is irrelevant. When you print more money it waters down the value and creates inflation. My point is war is not good for business if it is paid for by deficit spending.
          • I was merely responding to your post implying current inflation is due to the war in Ukraine. I respectfully disagree. Current inflation was baked in from covid spending. I agree it is printing money that makes it happen. And more inflation is coming this time because goods (food in particular) are going to get more scarce. The fed, for the moment, is raising rates and is pulling money out by not rebuying securities when they mature. The latest number I saw was around 80B/mo was the plan. And that is signif

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dasunt ( 249686 )
      Sounds like the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org] to me.

  • There's your IT context!

  • A trillion ain't what it used to be (Score:4, Informative)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Tuesday April 26, 2022 @10:05AM (#62480924) Homepage Journal

    In 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the end an important phase of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, our $2.113T today would have the equivalent spending power of $911B back then. In reality back in 1989 it was over $1.5T with the US's portion a massive $655B.

  • It's almost like global military spending goes up when there is an active war of aggression going on between industrialized nations. Especially when other industrialized nations are backing the one getting invaded by buying and sending them shitloads of weapons.

    Who would've thought?

  • Now do it in constant dollars.

  • This is one answer to the Fermi paradox. Each alien civilization evolves their own Russia, North Korea, Iran, because the power maximization strategy of threatening weaker neighbors with devastating, destructive force works for a while. Which therefore must be opposed by the otherwise peaceloving other countries, lest any "buffer zone" gets successively conquered by the bullies, who thus become too large and powerful for the remaining democracies to oppose. Ultimately, the bullies alienate everyone, become

  • Russia spent most of last year threatening to invade into Europe and this year they started their westward offensive...
    • Why then do you think that the European countries sponsor Ukraine so vehemently?
      Every Russian who dies in Ukraine can not die in Europe.

  • Required reading is Andrew Cockburn's "The Spoils of War", where he not only charts the endless increase of the military budgets (and how they are hidden in other budgets), but the endless decline of productive results. This decline was first noted by the "Military Reform Movement" 40 years ago: the guys who blew the whistle on $400 toilet seats and $600 hammers. Their point was not those costs at all, but that those costs were a comprehensible example of all the OTHER costs that were similarly magnifie

  • If from China why would believe them since they've been less than honest with Covid origins and ongoing flare-ups in Shanghai or Beijing?

    1. The CCP lies to make itself look good.
    2. see 1

    Also, the US Navy is the world's policeman for the high seas. Pirates are little more than a nuisance because the US Navy is on watch to protect the shipping lanes. This is hugely expensive.

  • Maybe it's ACTUALLY passed $2 trn in current dollars but the implication - that this is more than ever - is one of those 'lies by statistics'.

    https://moneywise.com/life/lif... [moneywise.com]
    The US *ALONE* spent $4.1 trn in current dollars for WW2 or about $1trn per year. Pretty sure that if you added everyone else, it would be multiples of that.

    (We 'only' spent $1.5 trn for TEN YEARS of wars in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan.)

  • Low (Score:2)

    by dohzer ( 867770 )

    Seems lower than I expected.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close