One thing to keep in mind is that defense spending tends to rely heavily on local provision. You generally can’t just import soldiers, and keeping military-industrial supply chains local or at minimum trusted is also a requirement. So using something like a PPP-adjusted figure rather than a nominal figure is probably going to be closer to what you’re actually buying, and that rather considerably diminishes the difference.
kagis for someone discussing the matter
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/chinas-military-rise-comparative-military-spending-china-and-us
Given current data, China’s military expenditure in PPP terms is estimated to be $541 billion, or 59% of US spending, and its equipment levels are only 42% of US levels. Comparing trends over time shows that the US has matched China in recent years, albeit at the cost of a much higher defence burden.
The underlying mechanism here is that China has a lot of people who will work for rather-lower wages than in the US, which means that each nominal dollar China budgets for their military can buy them more military capacity than in the US, via taking advantage of those lower wages.
If the US had a large supply of workers willing to work at Chinese wages, and could use them to drive its military and military-industrial system, that wouldn’t be a factor.
China also owns their own resources while the US doesn’t so the US has to pay a middle man to build anything.
Also, this probably includes what the US sells.
deleted by creator
Isn’t it “War Spending” now?
deleted by creator
Isn’t the USA numbers very skewed because they include like healthcare and pensions in their numbers, even for former soldiers, while say europeans don’t?
Also, (and I’m no kind of expert) it seems there’s a lot of graft involved in the spending, such as $67 charged for a screw, and that kind of thing. A good bit of it due to a kickback-type arrangement between the politicians involved (think Dick Cheney) and the defense contractors who get awarded the deals.
Some of those “$50 screw” numbers come from cancelling projects with high total cost. A contract might be paid to produce a thousand of something and get cancelled after making 10 of them, inflating the per unit cost by a ton
Thanks for the clarification. I was indeed just parroting what I’d heard & read several times, without really understanding the mechanisms involved.
well, it’s only some. Plus there’s plenty of conspiracy theories around those types of costs being how the gov funds secret projects.
Well that still counts as stupid ways to waste money, with a side of corruption
yep. plenty of money in defense wasted due to stupidity.
The Army manual says that screw must meet X, Y, and Z specs. If you don’t have the tooling for those exact specs, you’re going to charge more to make up the cost of retooling.
Of course there’s grift and plain foolishness. Local base Commander paid a painter I knew to stop work for two weeks and screw around waiting for his commander to visit. Wanted the boss to see the painters in action, look busy.
Speaking of specs, there are old rules that never changed. Worked at a print shop where a standard 24x36" blueprint was $.63. Nope. Navy had to have the final set of plans printed on plastic media, $3/page. Now multiply by 150 for a modest set of prints.
Meant to reply to you:
i think its a very small percentage, only 62billion goes to healthcare in the defense budget. half goes to defense contractors, which is huge.
I read it brings USA down under 3.5% of GDP but I’d love some better sources on that.
i was mentioning the 62billion out of the 900billion/year. its seems very small if you think about how many service members(enlisted and officers) + thier families.
Well that was the thing, they say defence contractors, but some of it goes to pensioins and healthcare.
2020-2024 over half of the military budget went to contractors. 54%.
https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/paper/profits-war-top-beneficiaries-pentagon-spending-2020-2024
Sources, nice!
So 46% can go to pensions or anything else.
Stop calling it defense.
The government did already
It’s officially war spending now.
deleted by creator
“War” spending, now.
Edit: I am slow
The United States provides security guarantees for most of the western world. That was the entire point of post-WWII reconstruction.
The US will provide security guarantees. Participating countries will provide free market access to their citizens.
- The Marshall Plan
The US has been in a position to overspend (proportionally) on defense due to having the strongest economy basically since WWII. Other countries are able to invest in their own economy, innovation or infrastructure without needing to spend money on defense.
Ignoring any Trump jingoism, look at NATO expenditures. These countries agreed to a certain level of spending based on their GDP so the US wasn’t the sole guarantor, but no one met their obligations for decades.
The United States provides security guarantees for most of the western world
This is just American exceptionalism. The west hasn’t waged a “defensive” war since 1945, all it’s done with its militaries is destroy other countries: Vietnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Yugoslavia are just a few examples that come to mind, tens of millions of lives lost and tens of millions more ruined just in these conflicts.
The world would be a far, far, FAR better place if the west didn’t have this level of military capabilities.
The US is completely free to reduce their spending to match the rest of NATO but does not.
We can make an argument about net expenditures.
Is the US carrying too much of the burden? If that is true AND the US wants to reduce its spending, then other nations need to increase theirs to keep the net expenditure close to before.
Let’s hand wave discussions on waste in procurement (a big issue for the US DOD). Same as we’ll hand wave the veteran benefits portion of expenditures.
If we don’t see that commensurate expenditure, then what becomes of the NATO security guarantee?
We can’t be naive enough to expect all adversaries to make similar reductions in their military spending.
And most of it goes either into super inflated prices for the most silly things, or into projects that no one can talk about and are unsupervised.
Hold up. I see three NATO countries in that top-spending list, yet Trump is crying that they don’t spend enough? It seems, as everyone seems to agree, that the problem is the US spends way too much. But since US “defense” spending is an obvious grift to shift public money to private pockets this isn’t too surprising.
Well he wants to dial up the grift of shifting other nato members’ public money into US MIC private pockets
Y.S.K. some countries are bigger than others. Per capita or G.T.F.O.
This is the weirdest justification to me. Military spending is for specific purposes. Like, if your hostile neighbor has twice the population as you and spends X dollars, then you don’t spend 0.5 * X dollars. You’re probably going to end up with higher spending per capita in order to reach parity. So why on earth would we compare by capita?
Building all my bombs in the Vatican so I get that high per capita ratio
So which is it. Stellaris, Hearts of Iron, or Crusader Kings?
Good post 👏
Make sure to baptise them so you get holy hand grenades
Please look at basically any asymmetric war in the past 75 years. E.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Ukraine.
You do not need to spend as much on defense as your larger opponent.
Yeah, now look at casualty rates in Vietnam and Afghanistan and ask yourself whether that’s really what most people would pick as a Plan A.
Looking at just combatant deaths:
Conflict Country / Side Years Active Total Military Deaths Duration (Days) Deaths per Day (Avg.) Approx. Troops Engaged Deaths per 1,000 Troops (Full War) Relative Intensity (U.S. in Vietnam = 1×) WWII – European Theater USSR (Red Army) 1941–1945 ~8,700,000 ~1,410 ≈6,170/day ~34,000,000 ~255 ≈310× WWII – European Theater Germany (Wehrmacht) 1941–1945 ~4,300,000 ~1,410 ≈3,050/day ~17,000,000 ~250 ≈150× Vietnam War North Vietnam (PAVN + VC) 1965–1975 ~600,000–800,000 ~3,650 ≈165–220/day ~3,000,000 ~230 ≈8–11× Vietnam War South Vietnam (ARVN) 1965–1975 ~250,000–313,000 ~3,650 ≈70–85/day ~850,000–1,000,000 ~280 ≈4× Vietnam War United States 1965–1973 58,220 ~2,920 ≈19.9/day ~2,700,000 ~21 1× (baseline) Soviet–Afghan War USSR 1979–1989 14,453 ~3,330 ≈4.3/day ~620,000 ~23 0.2× Soviet–Afghan War Afghan Mujahideen 1979–1989 ~75,000–90,000 ~3,330 ≈23–27/day ~250,000–300,000 ~300 ≈1–1.3× U.S.–Afghan War United States 2001–2021 2,461 ~7,270 ≈0.34/day ~775,000 (rotated) ~3 0.017× U.S.–Afghan War Afghan National Forces 2001–2021 ~66,000 ~7,270 ≈9/day ~300,000 ~220 ≈0.45× U.S.–Afghan War Taliban & Insurgents 2001–2021 ~52,000–60,000 ~7,270 ≈7–8/day ~200,000–250,000 ~250 ≈0.35× Now look at combatants and civilians:
Conflict Country / Side Years Active Military Deaths Civilian Deaths Duration (Days) Total Deaths/Day (Avg.) Approx. Troops / Population Affected Relative Intensity (U.S. in Vietnam = 1×) WWII – European Theater USSR (Red Army + Civilians) 1941–1945 ~8,700,000 ~15,000,000 ~1,410 ≈16,900/day ~34M troops / 110M pop ≈850× WWII – European Theater Germany (Wehrmacht + Civilians) 1941–1945 ~4,300,000 ~3,800,000 ~1,410 ≈5,750/day ~17M troops / 70M pop ≈290× Vietnam War North Vietnam (PAVN + VC + Civilians) 1965–1975 ~600,000–800,000 ~1,000,000 ~3,650 ≈440–500/day ~3M troops / 17M pop ≈22–25× Vietnam War South Vietnam (ARVN + Civilians) 1965–1975 ~250,000–313,000 ~1,000,000 ~3,650 ≈340–360/day ~1M troops / 18M pop ≈17× Vietnam War United States 1965–1973 58,220 N/A ~2,920 ≈19.9/day ~2.7M troops 1× (baseline) Soviet–Afghan War USSR 1979–1989 14,453 N/A ~3,330 ≈4.3/day ~620,000 0.2× Soviet–Afghan War Afghan Mujahideen + Civilians 1979–1989 ~75,000–90,000 ~850,000–1,000,000 ~3,330 ≈280–330/day ~15–17M pop ≈14–17× U.S.–Afghan War United States 2001–2021 2,461 N/A ~7,270 ≈0.34/day ~775,000 0.017× U.S.–Afghan War Afghan National Forces + Civilians 2001–2021 ~66,000 ~46,000 ~7,270 ≈15/day ~35M pop ≈0.7× U.S.–Afghan War Taliban & Insurgents 2001–2021 ~52,000–60,000 – ~7,270 ≈7–8/day ~200,000–250,000 ≈0.35× So now let’s look at the Vietnam war and military expenditure for each side:
Country / Side Years Active Estimated Military Expenditure (1965–1975) Approx. 2025 USD (Inflation-Adjusted) Military Deaths Combatant Deaths per $1B (2025 USD) Notes United States 1965–1973 ~$141 billion (nominal) ≈$1.3 trillion (2025 USD) 58,220 ≈45 deaths per $1B Includes DoD + support spending; excludes veterans’ costs North Vietnam (PAVN + VC) 1965–1975 ~$4.6 billion (nominal, incl. Soviet/Chinese aid) ≈$43 billion (2025 USD) ~700,000 ≈16,000 deaths per $1B Relied heavily on foreign aid and low-cost mobilization Metric Result Meaning Expenditure ratio (U.S. ÷ N. Vietnam) ≈30× U.S. spent ~30× more than North Vietnam Combat deaths ratio (N. Vietnam ÷ U.S.) ≈12× North Vietnam suffered ~12× more combat deaths Cost-per-death ratio (U.S. ÷ N. Vietnam) ≈350× U.S. spent ~350× more dollars per soldier killed Interpretation:
- North Vietnam traded manpower for resources, accepting high losses.
- The U.S. used capital- and technology-intensive warfare.
- Despite enormous expenditure, asymmetric strategy and morale offset the imbalance.
Tie it all together… in total war against a near peer, casualty rates are significantly higher. 50x for the Red Army in WWII, 17x for the Wehrmacht.
In asymmetric war, casualty rates are lower overall. And total GDP expenditure is significantly lower.
I don’t want to ignore the human cost here. But we’re talking about specific quantifiable metrics here, not the emotional trauma
That was entirely unnecessary and missing the point.
I don’t want to ignore the human cost here. But we’re talking about specific quantifiable metrics here, not the emotional trauma
Then it’s not a valid analysis.
What question are you even trying to answer here? Because whatever it is seems to be entirely unrelated to anything I was talking about.
I just realized you wrote the infuriatingly wrong claim, “North Vietnam traded manpower for resources, accepting high losses.” No, dumbass, they didn’t skimp on equipment because they were “willing to accept casualties,” they didn’t have money for equipment and fought tooth and nail with everything they had to avoid colonial subjugation. It wasn’t some kind of policy choice.
Percentage of GSP would also be a relevant figure
yet they still lost against the Taliban,
shame
More of a “tactical surrender” like every conflict they get into.
That’s called losing.
love those bs terms
“preemptive strike”, yhea, that’s a first strike and you just started a war.
“tactical surrender” losing
“strategic retreat” running away
“collateral” civilians
We don’t really fight wars like the ancients did, which is a good thing. Back then, it was total war with either wholesale enslavement of the population, or killing whoever you could get your hands on, then salting all arable land to kill off whoever was left, and to ensure nobody could live there for centuries.
It was brutally effective and completely wiped entire civilizations off the map.
Why are you bringing ancient roman warfare?
By that logic the allies didn’t win ww2?
The US military is machine designed to siphoning public tax fund towards shareholders pockets.
that’s why it lost a 20 year war against the poorest people on the planet.
the was was lost, but the profit was amazing for the real winners. ie, shareholders.
deleted by creator
And it virtually only ever goes up. More and more of our labor is going towards feeding the imperial war machine, while social services are gutted. Our corrupt politicians just want to line the pockets of the corporations that make bombs, and they start conflicts around the globe to justify it. The primary function of the military is essentially money laundering, to channel public funds into private hands.
Socialize (military) spending, vassalize smaller countries, privatize wealth, that’s the american way of running businesses
2 Trillions that could have been invested in education, science and welfare instead.
deleted by creator
