Military Power Ranking 2013.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

It's not just about being powerful. The military spending creates literally millions of US manufacturing jobs in a sector that is in desperate need of the industry. We don't just export those jobs to China. They stay here in America.

It's one of the only direct social spending that I really can agree with 100%. People say just take that money and put it back into the economy. Well... that's exactly what military spending does. Even these like 80 billion cuts have threatened some job loss and furloughs. 

Wasdie

Jobs aren't useful? That's news to me.

Or are you talking about the government directly investing into the private sector to make products for its own people? I'm sorry, that doesn't sound like capitalism. 

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"]

I wish the U.S would take focus on the great amount of military spending.. It's just not neccessary.. We are powerful enough.

Wasdie

It's not just about being powerful. The military spending creates literally millions of US manufacturing jobs in a sector that is in desperate need of the industry. We don't just export those jobs to China. They stay here in America.

It's one of the only direct social spending that I really can agree with 100%. People say just take that money and put it back into the economy. Well... that's exactly what military spending does. Even these like 80 billion cuts have threatened some job loss and furloughs.

I never knew Brazil was so powerfulCapitan_Kid

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"]

I wish the U.S would take focus on the great amount of military spending.. It's just not neccessary.. We are powerful enough.

The_Lipscomb

It's not just about being powerful. The military spending creates literally millions of US manufacturing jobs in a sector that is in desperate need of the industry. We don't just export those jobs to China. They stay here in America.

It's one of the only direct social spending that I really can agree with 100%. People say just take that money and put it back into the economy. Well... that's exactly what military spending does. Even these like 80 billion cuts have threatened some job loss and furloughs.

Some of the things you need to factor in when you look at the US military budget is we spend a lot of that money keeping our volunteers happy enough to reenlist and talk their friends and family into enlisting initially.

The US pays a brand new volunteer single Private/Seaman/Airman that just started initial training over $1,500 a month before taxes. On the other hand, South Korea has conscription where they draft every able-bodied male in the country and pay them less than a hundred dollars a month. That doesn't even factor in extra pay from promotions and the extra money we pay married troops. We spend more paying one Soldier than they spend paying 20 on average.

It would be easy for the DOD to cut billions simply by following South Korea's example and starting conscription while paying their conscripts several times less than what they would make if they worked in McDonald's. But then most people who have no interest in the military while at the same time complain about how much the Pentagon spends would be outraged that they may have to spend two to four years of their life in the military for slave wages.

Those are just examples; there are other factors to consider as well like manufacturing costs (China probably spends a lot less manufacturing their rifle of choice versus what we spend manufacturing an M4, for example) and what we pump into the economies of towns outside bases like rent money, car purchases, etc.

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

It's not just about being powerful. The military spending creates literally millions of US manufacturing jobs in a sector that is in desperate need of the industry. We don't just export those jobs to China. They stay here in America.

It's one of the only direct social spending that I really can agree with 100%. People say just take that money and put it back into the economy. Well... that's exactly what military spending does. Even these like 80 billion cuts have threatened some job loss and furloughs.

ad1x2

Some of the things you need to factor in when you look at the US military budget is we spend a lot of that money keeping our volunteers happy enough to reenlist and talk their friends and family into enlisting initially.

The US pays a brand new volunteer single Private/Seaman/Airman that just started initial training over $1,500 a month before taxes. On the other hand, South Korea has conscription where they draft every able-bodied male in the country and pay them less than a hundred dollars a month. That doesn't even factor in extra pay from promotions and the extra money we pay married troops. We spend more paying one Soldier than they spend paying 20 on average.

It would be easy for the DOD to cut billions simply by following South Korea's example and starting conscription while paying their conscripts several times less than what they would make if they worked in McDonald's. But then most people who have no interest in the military while at the same time complain about how much the Pentagon spends would be outraged that they may have to spend two to four years of their life in the military for slave wages.

Those are just examples; there are other factors to consider as well like manufacturing costs (China probably spends a lot less manufacturing their rifle of choice versus what we spend manufacturing an M4, for example) and what we pump into the economies of towns outside bases like rent money, car purchases, etc.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] Or we could take that money and use it for things that actually create something useful that makes people's lives better.Person0

Jobs aren't useful? That's news to me.

Or are you talking about the government directly investing into the private sector to make products for its own people? I'm sorry, that doesn't sound like capitalism. 

Of course, it goes without saying that a reduction in military expenditures would create additional need for said expenditures (on top of infrastructure needs) to offset the displacement caused by cuts. Without them, cutting military would be rather contractionary/harmful

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"]

I wish the U.S would take focus on the great amount of military spending.. It's just not neccessary.. We are powerful enough.

Wasdie

It's not just about being powerful. The military spending creates literally millions of US manufacturing jobs in a sector that is in desperate need of the industry. We don't just export those jobs to China. They stay here in America.

It's one of the only direct social spending that I really can agree with 100%. People say just take that money and put it back into the economy. Well... that's exactly what military spending does. Even these like 80 billion cuts have threatened some job loss and furloughs. 

You can't be fvcking serious, the only kind of "social spending" you support is defence spending (meaning its not social spending) because it has a stimulative effect? When practically all other forms of government spending have larger fiscal multipliers than defence spending (<1, meaning its relatively unstimulative), and are thus vastly better at the very function that you support defence spending for?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="The_Lipscomb"]

I wish the U.S would take focus on the great amount of military spending.. It's just not neccessary.. We are powerful enough.

Barbariser

It's not just about being powerful. The military spending creates literally millions of US manufacturing jobs in a sector that is in desperate need of the industry. We don't just export those jobs to China. They stay here in America.

It's one of the only direct social spending that I really can agree with 100%. People say just take that money and put it back into the economy. Well... that's exactly what military spending does. Even these like 80 billion cuts have threatened some job loss and furloughs. 

You can't be fvcking serious, the only kind of "social spending" you support is defence spending (meaning its not social spending) because it has a stimulative effect? When practically all other forms of government spending have larger fiscal multipliers than defence spending (<1, meaning its relatively unstimulative), and are thus vastly better at the very function that you support defence spending for?

[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]I never knew Brazil was so powerfulFightingfan

And North Korea is trying to declare war with us? :O

This list would have been a lot more interesting if it didn't include nukes as a factor. I doubt Russia would make the top 10.

Pirate700

They would even without them because of the carry over from the cold war. It wasn't that long ago their spending was near parity with the US and most military projects are at least decade long undertakings. China is still catching up in a lot of high tech areas, that's why they recently bought Su-35s to reverse engineer engines for their stealth fighter and their aircraft carrier which was bought from Ukraine is old Russian tech also as is the case with much of their operational equipment. The EU nations aren't really geared for anything other than a supporting role to the US and are smaller in size. Resources also come into play as the first move against an enemy is to cut their supply lines. The US and Russia can almost be self sustaining in war when it comes to resources. That was one of the major advantages both nations had over Germany and Japan in WW2. The EU, China and India are heavily reliant on resource imports including the most important resources in a conflict - oil.

After looking at the info on site I'm fairly certain the list doesn't take nukes into account. When you click on the nations it doesn't list them as a factor they consider or have nuke numbers. It would also explain why Pakistan is so low on their list. If you take nukes into account they should obviously be much higher.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

Some of the things you need to factor in when you look at the US military budget is we spend a lot of that money keeping our volunteers happy enough to reenlist and talk their friends and family into enlisting initially.

The US pays a brand new volunteer single Private/Seaman/Airman that just started initial training over $1,500 a month before taxes. On the other hand, South Korea has conscription where they draft every able-bodied male in the country and pay them less than a hundred dollars a month. That doesn't even factor in extra pay from promotions and the extra money we pay married troops. We spend more paying one Soldier than they spend paying 20 on average.

It would be easy for the DOD to cut billions simply by following South Korea's example and starting conscription while paying their conscripts several times less than what they would make if they worked in McDonald's. But then most people who have no interest in the military while at the same time complain about how much the Pentagon spends would be outraged that they may have to spend two to four years of their life in the military for slave wages.

Those are just examples; there are other factors to consider as well like manufacturing costs (China probably spends a lot less manufacturing their rifle of choice versus what we spend manufacturing an M4, for example) and what we pump into the economies of towns outside bases like rent money, car purchases, etc.

The_Lipscomb

If your idea of getting away from the problem is to leave the US then good luck to you. Hope your plans for overseas living are solid, you will have the proper visas so you won't be arrested for seeking employment, and whatever else is required.

As for us back here in the US, we could try to cut the budget but in the end the people who are hurt the most are the ones in boots. Just recently the military started selecting people to boot out involuntarily to reduce numbers and troops in almost all branches had their tuition funds for college shut off to save money. The higher ups will cut troops before they cut programs because cutting troops is the fastest way to save money.