By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Anti-Japan protests in China spread.

Mr Khan on 17 September 2012
mrstickball said:
SamuelRSmith said:
mai said:

If you want some real comparisons, compare military spending not against GDP, but budget. Anything GDP-related just serves the aim to delude people, you need to know what exactly contributes to GDP, how exactly budget correlates to GDP, taxtion, laws... omg, my head already hurts. But if compared against budget it makes the picture not perfectly but clear enough, the US spend smth like 20-25% of budget on military, this's high. As high as Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, India, but less than UAE (your ally). Not exactly the dove of peace, lol.


You have to consider that the United States political system works very differently to most other countries. Yes, defense as percentage of Federal budget is high... but it's one of the few areas that the Federal Government is supposed to focus on. When you include state Governments, which do most of the things that most central Governments do, the numbers are different. Also, local, etc.

To be fair, we have to spend 20-25% on the military since so many other countries that we're allied with won't bother to defend themselves. If the Europeans and Japanese would bother to get off their rear end and spend at a reasonable, NATO-required level, we wouldn't need to spend as much.

The Japanese are likely in severe violation of their constitution at the levels at which they're already spending. Now whether that is "correct" or not is up for debate, but asking the Japanese to do more is probably some kind of illegal.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
MrBubbles on 17 September 2012
mai said:

How exactly % of GDP is a good equivalent of military spending? This's like saying my head is bigger, therefore I'm smarter than you're :D


actually, its like saying "my head is bigger, therefore i have a larger hat"   



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Kasz216 on 17 September 2012
mai said:

Kasz216 said:

A) So you think the US is planning to invade Russia and China?

B) No... it's more like saying that me spending more on cars then you spend on cars is justified by the fact that I make way more money then you do.  As a percent of the budget, US militatry spending is fine.... and actually very low as far as how US spending usually is as a percentage of GDP.

Though yeah, i do agree the US Should loosen up and sell more weapons to more countries.

Spending more then 10 times the next 10 countries really isn't relevent when you make more then 10 times the next 10 countries.

A) *facepalm*, so you're in denial after all.

B) You don't make more money, actually you're outspending what you've earned, hence the debt. And again how exactly GDP is connected to "making money" whatever you mean by that? Elaborate. You officially have budget deficit. Your GDP to military spendings is just random numbers math.


A) So... you do?  I don't get what your saying here.

B) As your post below shows, even as a percentage of budget.  What the US spends isn't "10 times higher" then the next guy.

It's fine.  Espiecally considering that NATO is really just "The USA protects most of your shit so you don't have to spend money on defense for old outdated political reasons and so the US always has baked in allies whenever it wants to attack someone."



Nsanity on 17 September 2012
samuship said:
Japan is a God-like entity. Don't you dare to offend them!

Godlike? Spoken like a true Weeaboo.



mai on 17 September 2012

Kasz216 said:

A) So... you do?  I don't get what your saying here.

B) As your post below shows, even as a percentage of budget.  What the US spends isn't "10 times higher" then the next guy.

It's fine.  Espiecally considering that NATO is really just "The USA protects most of your shit so you don't have to spend money on defense for old outdated political reasons and so the US always has baked in allies whenever it wants to attack someone."

A) Who the fuck have said anynthing about conquest or smth? Not me for sure. The statement was very straighforward and clear, military presence in the region (be it South China Sea or whereever else) is politically important. Therefore Chinese are rightfully concerned about military presence around their coastline.

B) In raw numbers it 10 times bigger, in relative numbers it doesn't. What else exactly should be discussed here? It's simple. But again do not make it look like absolute numbers don't matter, it's nothing like your army is 10x bigger than second largest army spender. It's roughly a 1 mln, which is ok for country of this size. Should other 9x be somehow explained? Yes. So I did, see my points above.



Around the Network
mai on 17 September 2012

SamuelRSmith said:
You have to consider that the United States political system works very differently to most other countries. Yes, defense as percentage of Federal budget is high... but it's one of the few areas that the Federal Government is supposed to focus on. When you include state Governments, which do most of the things that most central Governments do, the numbers are different. Also, local, etc.

Maybe, not sure, but doubt that states budgets are concerned with anything but national guard or some minor things. We do have similar practices as well, regional budgets are responsible for paying various contractors that do not belong to the army structure (construction, meal, some materials etc.).



SamuelRSmith on 17 September 2012
mai said:

SamuelRSmith said:
You have to consider that the United States political system works very differently to most other countries. Yes, defense as percentage of Federal budget is high... but it's one of the few areas that the Federal Government is supposed to focus on. When you include state Governments, which do most of the things that most central Governments do, the numbers are different. Also, local, etc.

Maybe, not sure, but doubt that states budgets are concerned with anything but national guard or some minor things. We do have similar practices as well, regional budgets are responsible for paying various contractors that do not belong to the army structure (construction, meal, some materials etc.).


No, what I'm saying is the military spending to budget ratio will be different, because State level Governments pay for welfare programs, education, different subsidies, etc. In most other countries, those things are paid for by the central Government, so the military takes up a lower percentage of the overall budget of the central Government.



mai on 17 September 2012

SamuelRSmith said:

No, what I'm saying is the military spending to budget ratio will be different, because State level Governments pay for welfare programs, education, different subsidies, etc. In most other countries, those things are paid for by the central Government, so the military takes up a lower percentage of the overall budget of the central Government.

Again, maybe, I'm not denying that the ratio could be lower by a tiny bit. I just doubt this will outweight wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya including logistics and supplying the allies there like ANA or SPLM, don't forget to add maintance costs for these:

You know, there's a saying - want bankrupt a country? sell an aircraft carrier to it.



green_sky on 17 September 2012
mai said:

SamuelRSmith said:

No, what I'm saying is the military spending to budget ratio will be different, because State level Governments pay for welfare programs, education, different subsidies, etc. In most other countries, those things are paid for by the central Government, so the military takes up a lower percentage of the overall budget of the central Government.

Again, maybe, I'm not denying that the ratio could be lower by a tiny bit. I just doubt this will outweight wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya including logistics and supplying the allies there like ANA or SPLM, don't forget to add maintance costs for these

You know, there's a saying - want bankrupt a country? sell an aircraft carrier to it.

Yea Canada is buying F35's for ridiculous expense. I don't know why we need them and can't be cop outs like Swiss as we severely cut down after WW2 anyways. Miliary expense in general is a big waste of human resources. Countries spend arm and leg on it while that money could go a long way improving the internal problems faced by its citizens. 



mai on 17 September 2012

Chinese are attacking! :D

 

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/09/182775.html