Are we about to repeat WWI?


Machjo
Avatar
#1
Prior to WWI, the nations of Europe, expecting war, had begun to accumulate arms. The militarization continued unabated until the deadly conflict finally erupted,sparked by a simple assassination, unleashing all the power thus far accumulated.

I found this on the internet today:



(1991 figures are unavailable.)

If this chart is correct, world military spending today is again experiencing an increase. The purpose of militarization is to prepare for war. Once a region, or the planet, is fuly militarized, there can only be three possibilities:

1. Continued militarization, economic stagnaion, growing fear, paranoia and distrust further fed by rising taxes, debt, or inflation, and possibly an unstable cold war maintained by proxy wars.

2. Controlled and gradual demilitarization through international treaties, alliances, and negotiations.

3. All-out war.

If this chart is indeed correct, then it would seem that we're soon going to find ourselves in one of the positions above. Personally, I'd hope we can start demilitarizing before WWI repeats itself.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#2
Canada's military spending is USD 16,061,762,400 (1.1% of GDP) in 2005, according to this:

--

In comparison, the UK's is USD 63,479,100,000 (2.4% of GDP) (2009), France's is USD 68,135,700,000 (2.6% of GDP)(2005) (though France includes the national police budget in its calculation), and the USA USD 651,163,000,000 (4.06% of GDP) (2005).

To compare with a famous neutral country, Sweden spent USD 6,309,137,714 (2007), or 1.5% of GDP. Switzerland, USD 2,548,000,000, or 1% of GDP (2005).

As a percentage of GDP, it would seem Canada's spending is quite reasonable. How do we convince other countries to reduce their military spending though?
 
Machjo
Avatar
#3
One possibility I could think of would be to propose the formation of an international force. This way, all nations could contribute to it, and knowing that that force would defend any country whose rights are violated, they may not feel as much of a need to spend so much on their militaries anymore.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#4
On second thought, why does Canada have among the fifteen largest national defence budgets in the world when we have such a small population:

--

I'm assuming it's not referring to percentage of GDP but total expenditure rather.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#5
And here we have a visual representation of military expenditures worldwide:

--
 
Machjo
Avatar
#6
Perhaps to be fair, we could adopt the 'Japan' standard. In Japan, they're only allowed to spend 1% of their GDP on the military, and they're a member of SEATO, the South East Asian equivalent of NATO. So why not us.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#7
In Japan, in 2007, the defence budget was USD 43,600,000,000, or 0,8% of GDP in 2006.

How is it that one member of NATO/SEATO can spend so little while another must spend so much. Should we not have a common standard for all, and reduce Canada's to the same % GDP?
 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
#8
Well considering your first figure shows the global figure at about 1988 levels, I don't think you need to hit the panic button just yet. I'll agree that the 50% increase in global military spending in the last 10 years is a little worrying but when you put into perspective I don't see it as quite so alarming. NATO and other developed nations have been engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the actual deployment of troops and expenditure of resources in a deployment is a lot more expensive than "garrison" duty and training at home. We can argue about but the "legitimacy" of both of those actions but it really doesn't affect the fact that it costs more to have troops out of country than at home. The other thing is that with all the numbers on the first figure being in 2005 dollars, it doesn't account for inflation: $1 in 2005 bought less than $1 in 1988.

Japan may not be the best example to use either as some of their restrictions were put in place after WW2 because of their aggression prior to and during the war.
 
Machjo
Avatar
#9
Or we coud look at it in terms of active troops:

--

If, let's say, we should consider any number up to 100,000 active troops to be reasonable, then Canada would be well within that limit, at 65,000 troops. The US in comparison would go way too far, at 1,252,000,000 troops. UK, 195,000, and France 225,000.

What would be a way to encourage these other states to reduce their number of troops at least somewhat?
 
Machjo
Avatar
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

Well considering your first figure shows the global figure at about 1988 levels, I don't think you need to hit the panic button just yet. I'll agree that the 50% increase in global military spending in the last 10 years is a little worrying but when you put into perspective I don't see it as quite so alarming. NATO and other developed nations have been engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the actual deployment of troops and expenditure of resources in a deployment is a lot more expensive than "garrison" duty and training at home. We can argue about but the "legitimacy" of both of those actions but it really doesn't affect the fact that it costs more to have troops out of country than at home. The other thing is that with all the numbers on the first figure being in 2005 dollars, it doesn't account for inflation: $1 in 2005 bought less than $1 in 1988.

Japan may not be the best example to use either as some of their restrictions were put in place after WW2 because of their aggression prior to and during the war.

But can we be sure that the spending willdecline after the war? You may be right. With the US debt growing exponentially, the military budget might shrink substantially.

When we look at it in terms of number of troops, however, I think we'd need at least 100,000 troops before other countries would really start panicking about us. Canada has only about 65,000 troops, well within 'provocative' limits. So I sppose we needn't worry about Canada unduly provoking an arms race abroad. I guess the main concern is with other countries that do have enough active troops to provoke such an arms race, such as the US, the UK, France, etc.
 
Machjo
#11
And especially China.
 
Nuggler
Avatar
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

On second thought, why does Canada have among the fifteen largest national defence budgets in the world when we have such a small population:

--

I'm assuming it's not referring to percentage of GDP but total expenditure rather.


Just in case them pesky Yanks come rowin across the St. Lawrence again......by Jeez, we're ready.........eh

 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Canada's military spending is USD 16,061,762,400 (1.1% of GDP) in 2005, according to this:

--

In comparison, the UK's is USD 63,479,100,000 (2.4% of GDP) (2009), France's is USD 68,135,700,000 (2.6% of GDP)(2005) (though France includes the national police budget in its calculation), and the USA USD 651,163,000,000 (4.06% of GDP) (2005).

To compare with a famous neutral country, Sweden spent USD 6,309,137,714 (2007), or 1.5% of GDP. Switzerland, USD 2,548,000,000, or 1% of GDP (2005).

As a percentage of GDP, it would seem Canada's spending is quite reasonable. How do we convince other countries to reduce their military spending though?

Not sure, but if they'd keep their beaks out of everyone else's business it might help.
 
MrRight
Conservative
Avatar
#14
Canada yes is spending more, but when you are below on the military rating list, you have no where but up to go, plus i have buddies in the army, and we are the best trained.
 
Liberalman
#15
War creates opportunity and wealth and war gets rid of the compitition
 
darkbeaver
Republican
Avatar
#16
War is the new global economy, here are some of the players just from the USA everyone of them wants the wars they've paid for.

I pulled up all of the reports for first quarter 2009 but over 20,000 items came up (and the report only shows the first 3000). OK, try again - all reports for over $1 million for first quarter 2009. This time a little over 100 came up (including AIG, who spent $1,250,000 on lobbying during that period).

By Jill Richardson


June 23, 2009 "
--"Health Care, Health Insurance, & Pharma
3. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: $6,910,000
6. Pfizer, Inc: $6,140,000
12. American Medical Association: $4,240,000
18. American Hospital Association: $3,580,000
19. Eli Lilly and Company: $3,440,000
37. America's Health Insurance Plans, Inc: $2,030,000
39. CVS Caremark Inc: $2,005,000
47. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association: $1,800,000
49. GlaxoSmithKline: $1,780,000
63. Merck & Co: $1,500,000
65. United Health Group, Inc: $1,500,000
69. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc: $1,460,000
76. Novartis: $1,347,134
87. Abbott Laboratories: $1,260,000
89. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP: $1,250,000
92. Medtronic, Inc: $1,238,000
Oil
2. Exxon Mobil: $9,320,000
4. Chevron U.S.A. Inc: $6,800,000
7. Conoco Phillips: $5,980,935
16. BP America, Inc: $3,610,000
20. Marathon Oil Corporation: $3,380,000
45. American Petroleum Institute: $1,810,000
Defense
5. Lockheed Martin Corporation: $6,380,000
11. General Electric Company: $4,540,000
28. Northrop Grumman Corporation: $2,570,000
30. Boeing Company: $2,410,00
51. Honeywell International: $1,760,000
73. Raytheon Company: $1,360,000
Telecoms
10. AT&T Services, Inc: $5,134,873
14. Verizon (excluding Verizon Wireless): $3,760,000
21. National Cable and Telecommunications Association: $3,370,000
23. Comcast Corporation: $2,760,000
68. Motorola, Inc: $1,470,000
Automotive
22. General Motors: $2,800,000
27. United Services Automobile Association: $2,590,244
52. Ford Motor Company: $1,750,000
84. Toyota Motor North America: $1,290,000
86. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers: $1,264,400
Financial
32. Financial Services Roundtable: $2,260,000
33. Prudential Financial, Inc: $2,180,000
41. American Bankers Association: $1,890,000
61. Visa, Inc: $1,540,000
74. Investment Company Institute: $1,359,917
75. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: $1,350,000
82. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: $1,310,000
90. Citigroup Management Corp: $1,250,000
90. Credit Union National Association: $1,250,000
Biotech
36. Monsanto: $2,094,000
40. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO): $1,920,000
44. Bayer Corporation: $1,843,672
Railroads
24. Association of American Railroads: $2,759,545
54. Union Pacific Corporation: $1,717,108
71. BNSF Railway: $1,400,000
Life Insurance
42. American Council of Life Insurers: $1,867,075
44. New York Life Insurance Company: $1,840,000
64. State Farm Insurance: $1,500,000
93. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company: $1,237,000
Other
1. Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A.: $9,996,000
8. National Association of Realtors: $5,727,000
9. U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform: $5,480,000
13. AARP: $4,090,000
15. Southern Company: $3,650,000
17. Altria Client Services Inc: $3,580,000
25. Amgen, Inc: $2,750,000
26. National Association of Broadcasters: $2,600,000
29. Edison Electric Institute: $2,550,000
31. Fedex Corporation: $2,370,000
34. Textron, Inc.: $2,140,000
35. General Dynamics Corp: $2,101,945
38. International Business Machines (IBM): $2,030,000
43. United Technologies Corporation: $1,860,000
46. Recording Industry Association of America: $1,810,000
48. CTIA-The Wireless Association: $1,790,000
50. Time Warner Inc. $1,780,000
53. The Dow Chemical Company: $1,735,000
55. American Electric Power Company: $1,716,913
56. Microsoft Corporation: $1,650,000
57. Qualcomm, Incorporated: $1,620,000
58. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc: $1,600,000
59. L-3 Communications: $1,580,000
60. Exelon Business Services, LLC: $1,540,000
62. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc: $1,530,000
66. Norfolk Southern Corporation: $1,485,026
67. Koch Companies Public Sector LLC: $1,480,000
70. American Airlines: $1,450,000
72. Oracle Corporation: $1,390,000
77. Air Transport Association of America, Inc.: $1,340,000
78. Disney Worldwide Services, Inc.: $1,330,000
79. Sepracor, Inc: $1,324,157
80. National Association of Home Builders: $1,320,000
81. UPS: $1,316,426
83. Siemens Corporation: $1,300,000
85. Duke Energy Corporation: $1,282,770
94. Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S., Inc: $1,230,000
95. Business Roundtable: $1,220,000
96. Wellpoint, Inc: $1,220,000
97. American Wind Energy Association: $1,212,504
98. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: $1,206,427
99. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association: $1,200,000
99. CBS Corporation: $1,200,000
 
darkbeaver
Republican
Avatar
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Prior to WWI, the nations of Europe, expecting war, had begun to accumulate arms. The militarization continued unabated until the deadly conflict finally erupted,sparked by a simple assassination, unleashing all the power thus far accumulated.

I found this on the internet today:



(1991 figures are unavailable.)

If this chart is correct, world military spending today is again experiencing an increase. The purpose of militarization is to prepare for war. Once a region, or the planet, is fuly militarized, there can only be three possibilities:

1. Continued militarization, economic stagnaion, growing fear, paranoia and distrust further fed by rising taxes, debt, or inflation, and possibly an unstable cold war maintained by proxy wars.

2. Controlled and gradual demilitarization through international treaties, alliances, and negotiations.

3. All-out war.

If this chart is indeed correct, then it would seem that we're soon going to find ourselves in one of the positions above. Personally, I'd hope we can start demilitarizing before WWI repeats itself.

Logic dictates #3, without global war to the end, the present ruling hierarchy cannot sustain it's privilage. I hope we can start disarming too, but that is impossible without the political will of the people who have none. Would you support a war to end all wars?
It's not correct to think of War as a series of separated events in the modern age, it can easily be shown to be a continuation of unbroken preparations and executions all designed to consolodate the power and position of that hierarchy. It's main function is to burn and bleed off the power of labour in the most counterproductive manner possible.
Last edited by darkbeaver; Jun 24th, 2009 at 07:46 AM..
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#18
And now, let's hear from the war mongers!
 
Liberalman
Avatar
#19
Canada has to build up their military by upgrading their out of date hardware.

If Canada were invaded from the north or the south it would be over in days.

The Conservative party promised that it will modernize this county's military and we find out that this is another broken promise.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
Avatar
#20
We don't need a military. Nobody will invade with the US next door and they won't invade because they already own us.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
Avatar
#21
Canada has never been more threatened than it is right at this moment. Our economic subjugation was completed with the signing of the SPP agreements right now we have no idea who is running our security apparatus and we have no idea what contracts we have entered into. We do know we are not a soverign state, that is for sure, no western nation is, each and everyone belongs to the bankers, lock stock and barrel. The break-up of the united states is unavoidable. We will be striped to the bone of all usefull war materials, including personell.
 
Liberalman
Avatar
#22
When Harper got in office the first thing he did was face the Canadian flag put his hand over his heart and said God bless Canada which was a signal to the Amercan government that Canada is ready for statehood

Oh say can you see by the dawns early light
 
petros
Avatar
#23
Quote:

If Canada were invaded from the north or the south it would be over in days.

I get a HUGE laugh from those who think we can be invaded from the north. That is HILLARIOUS!
 
EagleSmack
Avatar
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post


When we look at it in terms of number of troops, however, I think we'd need at least 100,000 troops before other countries would really start panicking about us. Canada has only about 65,000 troops, well within 'provocative' limits. So I sppose we needn't worry about Canada unduly provoking an arms race abroad. I guess the main concern is with other countries that do have enough active troops to provoke such an arms race, such as the US, the UK, France, etc.

You can't be serious. Why would they panic about Canada having 100,000 troops?
 
EagleSmack
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I get a HUGE laugh from those who think we can be invaded from the north. That is HILLARIOUS!

Seals?

Polar Bears...they can be pretty nasty when provoked.
 
petros
Avatar
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

When Harper got in office the first thing he did was face the Canadian flag put his hand over his heart and said God bless Canada which was a signal to the Amercan government that Canada is ready for statehood

Oh say can you see by the dawns early light

Another HUGE laugh....dawn's early light? More like Rule Britannia. Who do you think all the debt is owed to by both US and Canada?
 
petros
Avatar
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Seals?

Polar Bears...they can be pretty nasty when provoked.

Nope just a really really really really really long walk through mud and snow with no 7-11s.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
Avatar
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

You can't be serious. Why would they panic about Canada having 100,000 troops?

Stupid Yankee it's because we have the high ground, look at any map, we can roll giant snowballs into the states from any point.
 
EagleSmack
Avatar
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Stupid Yankee it's because we have the high ground, look at any map, we can roll giant snowballs into the states from any point.

Not with Global Warming you can't...did you see that bare patch in Greenland! You guys are all out of snow!
 
petros
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Stupid Yankee it's because we have the high ground, look at any map, we can roll giant snowballs into the states from any point.

or cut 65% of the US energy supply.
 

Similar Threads

no new posts