Military budget

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised because of out-of-date information. Please help improve the article by updating it. There may be additional information on the talk page.

Please help improve this article by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (January 2007)

This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (March 2009)

A military budget of an entity, most often a nation or a state, is the budget and financial resources dedicated to raising and maintaining armed forces for that entity. Military budgets reflect how much an entity perceives the likelihood of threats against it, or the amount of aggression it wishes to employ. It also provides an idea of how much finances could be provided for the upcoming year.

Generally excluded expenditures are:

• Internal law enforcement
• Disabled veteran rehabilitation

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that in 2007 military expenditures for the world were $1,339,000,000,000.

[edit] Military budgets (2003)

The yearly report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows that the purchase of military products by NATO member nations during the year 2003 rose 11 percent relative to 2002 (6.5 percent in volume). In some countries, this budget has been increased to the level maintained during the Cold War.

The military budget of the United States leads in this increase; U.S. purchases account for 47 percent of world military expenditures in 2003, which totaled about US$956 billion. The funds for the War in Iraq and the supplementary expense of US$83 billion account for much of this increase; other spending only accounts for 3.5 percent of the increase.

The military budgets of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy represent about 13 percent (US$120 billion) of world military spending. France and the United Kingdom have increased their equipment expenses, not only to act in United States military operations with the same technological level of their ally, but equally to be able to act independently in smaller military campaigns such as Côte d'Ivoire.

Among non-NATO nations, Japan spent US$46.9 billion on military resources in 2003, The People's Republic of China, US$32.8 billion, and Russia, US$13 billion, (5 percent, 4 percent, and 1 percent of the world total, respectively).

[edit] NATO countries' largest military budgets

Military spending in 2005

Military spending in 2008, darker colors indicating more % of the GDP spent on military expenditures.

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised because of out-of-date information. Please help improve the article by updating it. There may be additional information on the talk page.

Budgets 2006 for NATO countries in billions of US dollars

* Iceland maintains no armed forces

• Source : Trends in European Defense Spending - DIIG CSIS

[edit] Peace building

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Increasing military budgets in the interest of peace building has proven ineffective. Even in regions where the risks of civil war are mounting, the efforts of increasing military expenditure spuriously appears to increase the risk of war rather than negate it. According to Paul Collier, military expenditure has no effect on the risk that a civil war will be initiated: high spending does not appear to deter rebellion. This is a somewhat surprising outcome, but it may indicate that a conventional military presence, such as soldiers in barracks, is largely ineffective in arresting the incipient stages of a rebellion. Alternatives such as good rural policing, or simply a good rural administration was suggested as a more effective measure than increasing military expenditure. ^[3] Another possibility is the set up of development projects (such as reforestation projects). For instance, the Keita project, constructed at the cost of 2/3 of 1 F-22 fighter jet (100 million $), was able to reforest 1,876 square miles of broken, barren earth, thereby increasing the socio-economic well being of the area and thus safety.^[4]

[edit] See also

• List of countries and federations by military expenditures
• Defense contractor
• Guns versus butter model
• Permanent war economy
• Military funding of science
• Military Keynesianism
• Military-industrial complex
• Peace dividend
• Swords to ploughshares

[edit] References

1. ^ http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/defense.pdf
2. ^ NATO-RUSSIA Compendium of Financial and Economic Data Relating to Defense
3. ^ Increasing military expenditure useless for peace building or averting civil war
4. ^ Keita project increasing socio-economic wellbeing

[edit] External links

• Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's database of military expenditures
• Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
• Military expenditure as percent of GDP - CIA The World Factbook
• Military expenditure - dollar figure - CIA The World Factbook link fails
• MilitaryBudget.info Information and news about the US defense budget