[OC] Around 30% of countries spend more than 2% of GDP on their militarySubmitted by IndeterminateYogurt t3_zzp93v in dataisbeautiful
gscjj t1_j2dfyjc wrote
Reply to comment by s3maph0re in [OC] Around 30% of countries spend more than 2% of GDP on their military by IndeterminateYogurt
Which basically means they (most of the EU) will never do it, and the US will be the bulk share of NATO missions.
cowboy_henk t1_j2dgott wrote
Many countries used to not spend that much, but have recently increased their spending in light of the war in Ukraine. Many are now at or above 2%.
_arc360_ t1_j2ehtqj wrote
They should have done it a decade ago
JustOneAvailableName t1_j2dih9m wrote
Although I do agree that europe could use a boost to it's army, I think it's mainly in a reduction in bureaucracy and investing more in domestic military industry. The EU has 20% more military personnel and thrice US's reserve. A large reason why expendenture is so much less is that it's aimed at defense and not oversea power projection. I.e. no aircraft carriers and nuclear subs
GarbledComms t1_j2djxoz wrote
But the US kind of needs the power projection capability to be a useful alliance member. Having a strictly territorial-defense oriented US military wouldn't do NATO any good. If it can't get to the battle, what use is it?
Archmagnance1 t1_j2dsmqq wrote
Yes but that wasn't the point. The point was explaining the different approaches. The US is an ocean away from anyone that isn't Central America or Canada. European NATO members were a couple hours train ride at most (besides the UK) from the reason NATO was formed, the USSR. Different geographical locations require different solutions.
KristinnK t1_j2draex wrote
Historically this hasn't been a problem, since the hypothetical war NATO was designed to fight was with the Soviet Union, and that war would happen when the Soviet Union actually invaded alliance members.
The situation today is quite different. The present and future threat is an aggressive China. For the continental alliance members to be useful in that fight they would need to invest heavily in power projection. And that simply isn't going to happen until China has already gone rogue, and will come too late to make any difference (see the war in Ukraine for reference).
Instead the U.S. will have to lean on allies in the Western Pacific. A re-armed Japan is going to be key, as well as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines and Australia. Defensive alliances with Vietnam and Indonesia also need to be established. China needs to be put in a position where a stunt like that of Russia in Ukraine would be absolutely suicidal to Chinese society, economy and instustry.
gscjj t1_j2djhsg wrote
Sure, the sit and wait strategy. Only problem is that doesn't stop enemies from getting to you in the first place.
The US has spent 25 billion in military aid to Ukraine which is practically double the aid from the EU. And Russia isn't advancing on our doorsteps.
If the US spent zero, there's a good chance Ukraine would be a Russian state by now becuase the EU couldn't do it alone, that's sort of what I'm saying.
StationOost t1_j2dkacq wrote
No one spend more in Ukraine than Europe. Military aid is just a part of what is necessary.
Til_W t1_j2dnsap wrote
An extremely important part though.
StationOost t1_j2dpcjc wrote
It's an important part, but American military aid is overpriced so any comparison of monetary value is useless. There is a lot you can do with 10 million, other than having a single missle.
Til_W t1_j2dqt3p wrote
Yes, but if you want to repel an invasion, you do need missiles, there's no way around it. Humanitarian aid is very important for lessening the pain that is already there, but it isn't going to stop Russia from hurting more.
StationOost t1_j2dt920 wrote
Missiles aren't that effective for defense. You can buy 100 million bullets for the price of 1 missile.
Til_W t1_j2duxpy wrote
TBH, this is a really stupid take and makes me think you're not that familiar with the topic of defense.
You can't stop a main battle tank with your rifle, actually no armored vehicle - you'll at the very least want AT missiles for those. And if you haven't noticed yet: Russia has a lot of these vehicles.
Now, if you were talking about non-AT AG missiles like HARM, you need those for defense (and retaking territory) too, mainly for attacking behind the lines equipment like artillery and air defense, which both are extremely important for supporting your enemies offense.
In case you missed it, it's no longer WW1.
StationOost t1_j2e60g2 wrote
I didn't say you should try to stop a tank with a rifle, what a stupid suggestion. I'm saying that most of the warfare in Ukraine is by infantry right now. If that is "WW1" for you, whatever.
Til_W t1_j2eqxkc wrote
You said that "missiles are not that effective for defense". If Ukraine is being invaded using e. g. lots of armored vehicles and you claim that missiles are not effective, what should they use instead? You only mentioned your "100 million bullets".
Adressing the current situation on the ground: So what? Infantry needs to be supported by vehicles, artillery and missiles to be properly effective. Zelensky was specifically asking for more Patriot systems (AA missiles!) just a week ago, they need them to shoot down Russian cruise missiles which are targeting Ukrainian infrastructure - yet you claim sending missiles is not effective for defense - huh?
If you're so convinced, please give me a concrete example of what missile that the US is sending to Ukraine is not effective or a waste of money.
^(And I don't think sending 100 million bullets would be worth it instead, Ukraine isn't actually short on mags. What they will need a lot of is AA missiles and artillery munition such as shells or GMLRS missiles.)
IndeterminateYogurt OP t1_j2dgb9z wrote
You could argue tho, that the "We can kill anything that moves wherever it is in less than 30 seconds"-ability the US gets for not spending a bit of the money on healthcare and education is a bit overkill and a bit unneeded.
Knows_all_secrets t1_j2dhyh7 wrote
Doesn't the US spend just as much of its money on healthcare as other OECD countries? It's just an awful system so people need to pay too.
Therealdickjohnson t1_j2dkye6 wrote
Yes. The US spends a higher percentage on healthcare than any other country. Significantly higher than other ocad countries. Problem is the system is not efficient. Huge amounts go into administrative costs because it isn't centralized. Wages for health professionals are also a lot higher in the states than any other country. And drug costs are higher than everywhere else too.
DecentlySizedPotato t1_j2dn9ou wrote
Military spending, even in the US, is almost an order of magnitude smaller than social security spending. Many western European countries have about 20% GDP spending on social security (including healthcare, public pensions, etc.). The US spends 3% of GDP in defence, most EU countries 1-2%. So defence spending is almost a rounding error here, it can be increased or decreased without almost affecting social security spending.
mkosmo t1_j2dzh0b wrote
It’s only perceived as “overkill” and “unnecessary” until you need the USA’s help. Then you’re glad that the US spends money on defense so her friends don’t have to.
[deleted] t1_j2dgpcn wrote
[deleted]
StationOost t1_j2dk67z wrote
Unlikely, European countries do not need to increase their defense budget, regardless of the US being part of NATO. Unless you think the US declares war on Europe.
dosedatwer t1_j2e4cot wrote
And vice versa for curtailing emissions.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments