Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:22, 8 September 2006

Military history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

SIPRI

Can someone update the list using the official statistics of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute? These are the figures used by most of the European defence ministries, including the British Ministry of Defence.

According to SIPRI, the top five spenders are:

(1) US (2) UK (3) China (4) France (5) Japan

Wow

How can the u.s. spend so much money and still have a poor and ineffective military? Very odd and sad

-G

Whats the base of your claim? OR are you just trolling? It seems very effective at invading other countries to me. -Cpl G

The EU

Any chance someone can figure out the total for the EU, much obliged :) Sri Theo 23:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I added this information. Obviously this can only be a rough estimate, as the figures are from different years. T-Rence 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't find the EU figure anymore. Maybe we should add a table for political/ military alliances, especially a combined NATO figure would be useful.--172.182.73.64 01:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources other than the CIA Factbook

Personally I think secondary sources should be used (with references noted, obviously) for countries not mentioned in the CIA Factbook - omitting Russia, for example, seems rather silly. The name of the article suggests a complete list of the expidentures of all the militaries of the world, and I think the article should reflect that. MMad 20:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I hope another column on "Source" can be added to the table. But meanwhile, you can update the table and list the reference under the column "Date of information". --Vsion 22:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm seems like a valid source

I think it would be good to have several sources either as a new column or a different list - this is like other articles such as the GDP list which shows both IMF and world bank figures -- Astrokey44|talk 08:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

relinking

I think the wiki links for each country should point to the articles about their militaries (like Military of South Korea) instead of the countries themselves. It makes more sense, considering this article is about their military budgets.--Kross 07:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Japan

The expenditure figures for Japan (and China) need updating so that there is compariable data for the top 5. David 22:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Russia?!

Come on, Russia has to be added to this list. It will probably be in the top 5 or so. And can we get more accurate figures for Japan and France please? David 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why so much?

What I want to know is why Switzerland, Australia, Luxembourg, and Sweden spending so much money on defense? They do nothing much militarily, do they?

Australia was a major contributor to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as well as other conflicts and has to spend a lot of money on military anti-terrorism measures due to its northern neighbour Indonesia. As for the other countries, just because they don't go invading other countries every 5 minutes doens't mean they don't like to be able to defend themselves and contribute to peacekeeping. Are you american by any chance?--Joe 1987 17:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as Sweden goes: The foreign policy of Sweden is based on the premise that national security is best served by staying free of alliances in peacetime in order to remain a neutral country in the event of war. In order for the foreign policy to be credible to the outside, it used to be deemed necessary for a perhaps "unusually" large military for a country the size of Sweden and which has not been to war or civil war since 1814. Today, there is a trend for the military expenditures to decline. Martin Ulfvik 02:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

3rd place

Why are UK and Russia joint 3rd place?--Joe 1987 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Russia doesn't have a rank on this article at the moment as we need a correct figure for its defence budget first. However, it would be around the 3rd/4th position. David 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Better sources needed

Sorry people, the CIA World factbook is not a very reliable source when it comes to many matters, but especially this one. A lot of these figures are estimates (even if they haven't been stated as such); for example, the figure given for France is $45 billion, but the French embassy says the current year's budget is $41.5 billion. Official government figures would be more reliable and, I firmly believable, more desirable. Continuing with the theme of gross inaccuracy, Britain does not spend $58 billion. That's a ridiculous figure; French military spending is actually slightly higher than that of the British. The three largest defense spenders in the world are America, China, and France, and seeing how they are all in militaristic streaks involving significant procurement objectives, that is unlikely to change in upcoming years. Russia in no way spends $50 billion annually on defense; that's another astounding and ridiculous number. Russia is no financial position to spend that much. From Global Security:

"2005 Budget

Defense appropriations emerged as the top priority in the draft budget approved 23 August 2004 by the Russian cabinet. Military spending is due to rise to 528 billion rubles ($18 billion - $1 is about 29 rubles) in 2005, up 28 percent from last year's 411 billion rubles ($14 billion). The nominal defense budget stays at a level of 2.6% to 2.7% of GDP. Years of neglect and under-funding have left the Russian forces in desperate need of extra funds. For 2005 the military was supposed to spend 146 billion rubles for modernization.

The 2005 budget continues to compensate for these lean times. The increase appears very large, but these numbers -- over 25 percent -- do not take inflation into account. Inflation up to now in Russia has been considerable. The government says that inn 2005 they will be able to lower it below 10 percent annually, but it's not clear if they will be successful. So in reality, the increase in defense spending is around 15 percent.

A specific feature of the 2005 budget was a significant increase in defense spending (by 27.7% compared with this year), and in spending on national security and law-enforcement activities (by 26%). Without any problems, the 2005 budget was approved by deputies in its fourth and final reading and then submitted to the Federation Council, which supported the budget at a special session on 10 December 2004. Although the Russian military remains at a fraction of its former strength, training rates and defense spending were increasing."

I'm glad that there are warnings, but I think they should be more pronounced and incisive. There is much that is wrong with many of these numbers.UberCryxic 01:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the United Kingdom figure is correct. The defence budget for the UK government in the financial year 2005/06 is £33.3 billion, which is an accurate and correct figure. This amounts to $58.6 billion using the average exchange rate over the past year between the pound and dollar. If you think this figure is too high then maybe your knowledge of the world is rather weak. The United Kingdom has the world's fifth largest GDP (the order currently goes: USA, Japan, Germany, China, UK, France) and so having the 3rd or 4th largest defence expenditure is about right (especially when you consider that Germany and Japan do not have nuclear weapons or carrier naval forces). The % of GDP spent on defence in the UK is a mere 2.7% which is far lower than the % of GDP spent on the military in the USA or China for example. France's figure is sometimes quoted as being higher than the United Kingdom's but it includes paramilitary forces, which the UK does not have. Actual defence spending in France is similar, perhaps slightly less, than for the United Kingdom.

What needs to be updated and verified are the figures for Russia, Japan and China. David 13:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the comment about my knowledge of the world, but I think I can let it go. Anyway, I should clarify that obviously America, Britain, and France-in that order-have the world's best militaries. That's almost unquestionable. I took a second look, and the figure for Britain is correct. My quarrel came because I saw a source which said French defense spending as a percentage of its GDP was 2.6%, but the British only at 2.4%, which would make the two about equal in light of Britain's larger GDP. Also, as you mentioned, many sources put French spending higher than that of the British. I have seen the number you cited (2.7%), but only in the late 1990s. The Russian figure is, however, wrong. I suspect the Chinese figure is wrong too; most estimates I've seen put it at $40 billion to $65 billion.UberCryxic 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oook I went back to find the source; it was NATO (see here). For 2005, France spent 2.5% of its GDP on defense whereas the UK spent 2.3%. It should be noted, however, that NATO has different standards from measuring military spending than the governments themselves. This is what probably caused the confusion.UberCryxic 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone check the figures here so we have something consistent. In the beginning of the article, it is said that "Most of the information is from The World Factbook, CIA", which is mostly true, with the noteworthy exception of the UK, which is said to have a budget of 58,600,000,000$, whereas the CIA World Factbook gives 42,836,500,000$. 82.234.182.51 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

CIA numbers makes no sense.

I dont know where CIA is getting its data, but its more than ridiculous (I really don´t know a word big enough for this kind of stupidity) How could it be that countries without an army spend several millions on military? so what the hell are they calculating? You can compare the data against the list of countries with no army: Haiti: 26,000,000, Disbanded on June, 1995. Mauritius: 12,500,000, no army since 1968. Costa Rica: 64,200,000, no army since 1949. Panama: 147,000,000, Abolished their army in 1990.

After someone can prove where we have the tank parked i will erase my country from the list. User:Mauvarca

CIA is crap

CIA dose not keep up with the year it say france spends 45,000,000,000 for 2005 but uk spends 42,836,500,000 for 2003 they are not up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esau sleiman (talk • contribs)

Military Expenditures per Capita

Anyone interested in creating a list that would show this data per capita? June 11, 2006.

Eritrean Military spending

While it definitely isn't much compared to, say, the U.S. in absolute terms, most almanacs list Eritrea as having the highest military spending as a percentage of GDP. 205.188.117.69 03:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

List of countries by military expenditures

Yes, that's been added to the article; what about it? Ryūlóng 00:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding it here means nothing. Talk to us. Tell us what you want to do. You will be blocked if you repeat this information. Ryūlóng 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop using that CIA factcarp.And use some wikipedia thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esau sleiman (talk • contribs)

CIA is the reliable source for this information; and that is the final say on what is used in this article, unless you can provide updated sources. Ryūlóng 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

it is not a reliable source because not just some but a lot of it is old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esau sleiman (talk • contribs)

There is a difference between an old source and a Misplaced Pages:Reliable source. Read the guidelines at the page I have just linked. Ryūlóng 00:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

you are a smart person and you know what you are talk about but wikipekia have better source. And there is a big difference because I know france and japan do not spend more than UK because for france and japan there military spending is for 2005 to me that is reliable. But for the UK it is for 2003 dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esau sleiman (talk • contribs)

If you can give a new source that shows all updated information, then we will update the list. But your edits, and those of the anonymous IP are harmful. Ryūlóng 00:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have two source on is one is wikipedia of all of the militarys of the world and the other is global issues.And they are a lot better than CIA. Esau Sleiman

Misplaced Pages cannot be a source to itself, nor can other Wikipedias be sources for this one. The CIA is a more available and reliable source in all of these situations. Ryūlóng 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In CIA a lot of the military spending is old some from 2002 and 2003 they can be right in those years but not now. To me and other Global Issues is mor e reliable and up to date. Esau Sleiman

Actually, the CIA's page is updated; however the article is protected from editting now because of the actions of yourself and the IP editor. Ryūlóng 02:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

dude my sorry but I seen that crap about three years ago and I am telling you it old. And the list that shows all of the military spending is shit because some person changed the years around do not mean a thing. If you ate going to change it than put some thing new on. Esau Sleiman

Have you seen all of this: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html? It looks updated to me. Complete with figures only a year old. Ryūlóng 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Even Sao Tome and Principe has 2005 figures. I will get someone to change it so it can be helped. And please keep cool. Ryūlóng 02:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude my not trying to be a asshole but the thing you had on before was right. Because I know that not just a little bit but a lot of it is old not just a year but two or three. And I know that the uk spends more than France and japan. And I know Japan spends more than France. I do not have a thing about France but I know they ate third. Esau Sleiman

When will it be fixed Esau Sleiman

I do not know. I have asked an administrator to look into this. Ryūlóng 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

dude where you the one that change it to CIA. Esau Sleiman

Just wait. Everything will be updated, and it will be from the CIA since that is a reliable source. You haven't given us your sources, so we do not know what else there is. Ryūlóng 02:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude I have give you source. Try this website www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp Esau Sleiman

just go to the website of global issues and the source will be more reliable. Esau Sleiman

Admin note: When consensus is reached on updates to the page, a request can be made to edit the protected page. You might try working out an agreeable text here and then making the request. This request should not be made by an individual editor trying to advance his/her point of view. — ERcheck (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That list is way too small to be used on Misplaced Pages. The CIA is a much better resource in this case. Ryūlóng 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

why is it better where does CIA get it facks at can you tell me so I know it is reliable I would love to know. Esau Sleiman

what no answer to why it is better than the source I gave you. Esau Sleiman

The United States Central Intelligence Agency is a much better resource than that website you have provided. Ryūlóng 02:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not use it than that CIA crap. But you still have not answer me bro I'm not trying to make you mad. Why is CIA better than the thing a give you. Esau Sleiman

Because it is a government agency, and not a commercial website. Ryūlóng 02:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And it provides much more information that what you gave. Ryūlóng 02:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok do not use it all just a the military list. But you have not answer me why is CIA a good source. And do not give a few anrswer. Esau Sleiman

if you cant switch CIA then put in something new . and if you cant answer my question that means CIA is not a reliable source. Esau Sleiman

The main role of Central Intelligence Agency is to gather information about foreign governments and their militaries and to report back to the various branches of the United States Government. They're not exactly amatuers at this seeing as the Military budget of the United States is formulated in response to their intelligence and they've been at it since the end of World War II. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

how cia fact more reliable then that those facts that i gave you esau sleiman

Do you not read our responses? The CIA is more official than anything else. It's a government agency. Not a non-profit organization. Ryūlóng 03:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

so if CIA is a government agency and Global Issues is a government agency why not use it. But what I want to know how do you they are both government agencys. Esau Sleiman.

Global Issues is not a government agency. The CIA is, because it is the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Before you continue to ask why we cannot use Global Issues, please read Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. Ryūlóng 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

the source I gave you is not governemt agency but CIA is. Is CIA more reliable than SIPRI. But still The facts on CIA are old A lot of is from two to three years and older. Esau Sleiman

Yes, CIA is more reliable than SIPRI, and the facts on CIA's site are only a year old, the facts on Misplaced Pages are older, though. Ryūlóng 04:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you read http://www.globalissues.org/about/who/ yet? "I am Anup Shah, the editor of this web site...I maintain this site at my own cost and in my spare time, on my own." Now take a careful look at http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp and note the multiple sources being referred to on the same page: "Some of the above statistics come from organizations such as the Center for Defense Information, and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation." From the graph, we can't tell which source Shah used for each figure. We don't even know if all the sources he's using are even using the same criteria for measuring expenditure! The figures being released by a national intelligence apparatus would much more likely be uniformly measured and thus more accurate! --  Netsnipe  ►  04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

yes I looked at the list of military spending it looks more reliable than CIA. esau sleiman

like I said before I seen CIA list before it is old. Esau Sleiman.

The CIA list is not old. The information on Misplaced Pages is old, though, and before this list was disrupted, we would have been able to update it from the new information released by the CIA. Ryūlóng 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If is say UK, Germany military Spending is from 2003. that tells me and a lot other people that come to this website it is old and needs to be updated. Esau Sleiman.

Why does it say UK, Germany military spending at 2003 Esau Sleiman

Check this site for the updated information. Right now, no one can edit the article to update the information on this site (Misplaced Pages). Ryūlóng 05:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think because it says every thing on is 2005 it is right. ciclk on uk or germany and they will say 2003 for military spending. Esau Sleiman

It's as updated as the CIA is going to get. When they update, we update. Ryūlóng 05:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ciclk on UK and see it military spending it will say 2003 that is not update. Esau Sleiman

Please stop pushing this. The CIA is our reliable source in this area, however old the figures are or not. If you continue to make these edits, you may be blocked for disrupting Misplaced Pages. Ryūlóng 05:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

dude who the hell are you to do that do me because you put some crap on this website and people come to this website to learn things and you put bullshit on it. it take people me to fixs it and people like to fuck it up. did you make this website. If block me I'm just going keep coming on every thing dude you can't do shit about it. Esau Sleiman

You are now being extremly incivil now. Unfortunately, this article had to be protected from disruption, and the most reliable source we have about this information may be a little outdated, but that does not mean that you have to badmouth anyone related to it. I am trying to help you. And please sign your posts by typing this symbol "~" four times in a row. Ryūlóng 05:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

dude this what my say you find new than CIA or you can read a lot other up and see people say cia is not right. And if you block me I'm going what have been. and you can not stop. Esau Sleiman

There is nothing reliable that is newer. We have to use the CIA as our resource. Ryūlóng 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

SIPRI is newer and more Reliable allright. Esau sleiman

No, it is not. Please read Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, then tell me why it is reliable according to Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Ryūlóng 05:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On the CIA list it says it needs to updated. Esau sleiman

Please don't abuse the ":]" symbols. They're for wiki-formatting and for crying out loud, please learn to sign your talk message posts the Misplaced Pages way (using 4 ~ symbols in a row) and learn to use edit summaries. You look like a fool for not being able to follow such a simple request repeated, many, many times. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

dude do I do give a shit. Esau Sleiman

You should. Now stop doing these things, and just do what we tell you. If you continue to edit in this way, you will be blocked. Ryūlóng 05:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, the CIA is used as a source for nearly everything else on Misplaced Pages because it is reliable and using it keeps WP consistent in its sources. Changing it here would mean a major overhaul over a lot of pages. It's much better just to keep it with the CIA. -- the GREAT Gavini 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)