here's a nice list:
Quote:
U.S. MILITARY SPENDING VS. THE WORLD
(EXPENDITURES IN BILLIONS OF U.S. DOLLARS)
Country Military Spending (Billions of $) World Ranking
United States 711.0 1
China 121.9 2
Russia 70.0 3
United Kingdom 55.4 4
France 54.0 5
Japan 41.1 6
Germany 37.8 7
Italy 30.6 8
Saudi Arabia 29.5 9
South Korea 24.6 10
India 22.4 11
Australia 17.2 12
Brazil 16.2 13
Canada 15.0 14
Spain 14.4 15
Turkey 11.6 16
Israel 11.0 17
Netherlands 9.9 18
United Arab Emirates 9.5 19
Taiwan 7.7 20
Greece 7.3 21
Iran 7.2 22
Myanmar 6.9 23
Singapore 6.3 24
Poland 6.2 25
Sweden 5.8 26
Colombia 5.4 27
Norway 5.0 28
Chile 4.7 29
Belgium 4.4 30
Egypt 4.3 31
Pakistan 4.2 32
Denmark 3.9 33
Indonesia 3.6 34
Switzerland 3.5 35
Kuwait 3.5 36
South Africa 3.5 37
Oman 3.3 38
Malaysia 3.2 39
Mexico 3.2 40
Portugal 3.1 41
Algeria 3.1 42
Finland 2.8 43
Austria 2.6 44
Venezuela 2.6 45
Czech Republic 2.5 46
Romania 2.3 47
Qatar 2.3 48
Thailand 2.3 49
Morocco 2.2 50
Argentina 1.9 51
Ukraine 1.7 52
Cuba 1.7 53
Angola 1.6 54
New Zealand 1.5 55
Hungary 1.3 56
Ireland 1.1 57
Jordan 1.1 58
Peru 1.1 59
North Korea n/a n/a
Global Total (not all countries shown) 1,472.7 n/a
|
source page with a neat-o graphic that shows the united states alone accounting for 48% of global spending on the military. how many countries total outlays have to be added together, starting with number 2 on the list, to reach that of the united states?
wait, here's another little chart that does the work for you:
right. so it's obvious that there's no rational basis for present levels of military spending. it's obvious that there's no rational basis for maintaining the national security state. except that the national security state is an institutional structure that seems to have real power. plus they benefit from the conservative preference to govern from panic-to-state-of-emergency.
military expenditures account for about a quarter of federal government spending. it is the largest single sector (conservatives like to add together social security and medicaid and call them a single thing so that it looks bigger than the military).
fact is that all this supply-side focus on taxation as in itself the problem is hooey. the problem is in allocation. it's in priorities. and the biggest problem is the continuance of the national security state.
but it's also obvious to anyone who looks at actual history as opposed to econ 101 cliff-note versions of it that since the reagan administration its been supply side bullshit when the political target is the redistributive functions of the state but keynesian all the way when it comes to military spending.
why is that?