Genius
Posts: 953 
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
February 20th, 2006, 11:44 PM
Heres what I was able to find on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures
Rank Country Military expenditures, USD Date of information
— World Total 896,235,600,000 —
1 United States 370,700,000,000 March 2003
-- European Union 205,326,700,000 est. (see note)
2 People's Republic of China* 67,490,000,000 2004
3 Japan 45,841,000,000 2004
4 France 45,000,000,000 2005
5 United Kingdom 42,836,500,000 2003
6 Germany 35,063,000,000 2003
7 Italy 28,182,800,000 2003
8 Saudi Arabia 18,000,000,000 2002
9 India 16,970,000,000 2004
10 Australia 16,650,000,000 2004
11 South Korea 16,180,000,000 2004
12 Turkey 16,155,000,000 2004
13 Brazil 11,000,000,000 2004
14 Canada 10,458,269,000 2004
15 Spain 9,906,500,000 2003
16 Netherlands 9,408,000,000 2004
17 Israel 9,110,000,000 FY03
18 Republic of China (Taiwan) 7,574,000,000 2003
19 Mexico 6,043,000,000 2004
20 Greece 5,790,000,000 2004
Heres what I was able to find on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures
Rank Country Military expenditures, USD Date of information
— World Total 896,235,600,000 —
1 United States 370,700,000,000 March 2003
-- European Union 205,326,700,000 est. (see note)
2 People's Republic of China* 67,490,000,000 2004
3 Japan 45,841,000,000 2004
4 France 45,000,000,000 2005
5 United Kingdom 42,836,500,000 2003
6 Germany 35,063,000,000 2003
7 Italy 28,182,800,000 2003
8 Saudi Arabia 18,000,000,000 2002
9 India 16,970,000,000 2004
10 Australia 16,650,000,000 2004
11 South Korea 16,180,000,000 2004
12 Turkey 16,155,000,000 2004
13 Brazil 11,000,000,000 2004
14 Canada 10,458,269,000 2004
15 Spain 9,906,500,000 2003
16 Netherlands 9,408,000,000 2004
17 Israel 9,110,000,000 FY03
18 Republic of China (Taiwan) 7,574,000,000 2003
19 Mexico 6,043,000,000 2004
20 Greece 5,790,000,000 2004
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
February 21st, 2006, 12:14 AM
If only we could just live in a world where money was not a necessity at all? Where Canada would say "Oh dear, the United States appears to have a shortage of lumber! Well, we have some to spare," while Japan exports a few classroom sets of computers to rural-area schools in India.
If only we could just live in a world where money was not a necessity at all? Where Canada would say "Oh dear, the United States appears to have a shortage of lumber! Well, we have some to spare," while Japan exports a few classroom sets of computers to rural-area schools in India.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,786
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
February 21st, 2006, 12:19 AM
Quoting
Thats a big problem too. forgot to mention that. We really are not getting the bang for the dollar we should be, and your right this is in many area's.
I may, or it may not, Finder.
A lot of money is wasted in many governmental areas, and newer equiptment won't fix that problem.
The government needs to work towards maximal value per dollar rather than more dollars.
A lot of money is wasted in many governmental areas, and newer equiptment won't fix that problem.
The government needs to work towards maximal value per dollar rather than more dollars.
Don't bother arguing, I KNOW!
Posts: 10,480 
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
February 21st, 2006, 12:20 AM
Quoting
Really Hank? I'll be happy when we rank 10th or so, which would mean somebody else is running around the world, leaving some money for OUR social programs for a change.
If we can increase our spending to about 8th, between Italy and Saudi Arabia I would be happy. Anything to put us ahead of those lousy Australians 
Super Genius
Posts: 1,239
Location: Edmonton
Location: Edmonton
February 21st, 2006, 12:21 AM
That amount for Canada is low by a few billion, however the data was for the 2004 fiscal year.
P.S.
That amount for Canada is low by a few billion, however the data was for the 2004 fiscal year.
Quote:
Couldn't agree more there. A great example of this is the Canadian Navy's submarines. An idea was floated before the Upholders were purchased from Britain, for Canada to purchase the plans to build 5 Trafalgar Class Nuclear Attack Submarines from Britain. The idea was dismissed due to cost, however nuclear submarines are cheaper to operate in the long run. The Upholders (redubbed Victoria Class) are Diesel/Electric, expensive to operate and with only a fraction of the range that nuclear vessels have. In addition to creating numerous jobs in Canadian Shipyards, yes buying nuclear submarines would have needed a large influx of cash at the start, but in the long run Canada would have saved money. This shortsightedness was the epitome of the Liberal Government, a cabinet i'm happy to see go. Will the Conservatives be able to undo the Liberal screw ups? Perhaps, we'll see.
The government needs to work towards maximal value per dollar rather than more dollars.
P.S.
Quote:
We are ahead of Australia as of 2005. Going in to 2006 we're even further ahead, and by 2007 they'll be a distant memory.
If we can increase our spending to about 8th, between Italy and Saudi Arabia I would be happy. Anything to put us ahead of those lousy Australians
Don't bother arguing, I KNOW!
Posts: 10,480
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
February 21st, 2006, 12:45 AM
Here's a list for 2004, Hank you're already ahead of the land down under.
1. United States $455.3
2. United Kingdom 47.4
3. France 46.2
4. Japan 42.4
5. China 35.4
6. Germany 33.9
7. Italy 27.8
8. Russia 19.4
9. Saudi Arabia 19.3
10. Korea, South $15.5
11. India 15.1
12. Israel 10.7
13. Canada 10.6
14. Turkey 10.1
15. Australia 10.1
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904504.html
Here's a list for 2004, Hank you're already ahead of the land down under.
1. United States $455.3
2. United Kingdom 47.4
3. France 46.2
4. Japan 42.4
5. China 35.4
6. Germany 33.9
7. Italy 27.8
8. Russia 19.4
9. Saudi Arabia 19.3
10. Korea, South $15.5
11. India 15.1
12. Israel 10.7
13. Canada 10.6
14. Turkey 10.1
15. Australia 10.1
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904504.html
Genius
Posts: 953
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
February 21st, 2006, 02:31 AM
Quoting
your absolutely correct, its not strictly the amount we spend, but what we spend it on.
why do you put so much value in comparative military spending, Hank?
Quote:
yea, problem is now there is a huge discrepancy with the numbers.
Here's a list for 2004, Hank you're already ahead of the land down under.
Genius
Posts: 953
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
February 21st, 2006, 03:38 AM
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News...c=n022033A.xml
New defence treaty with U.S. to include maritime surveillance: minister
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HALIFAX (CP) - A new North American defence treaty with the United States will not compromise Canada's control over its own military, nor will it mean automatic adoption of American plans for a ballistic missile defence system, newly appointed Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Monday.
The existing binational agreement on continental air defence, the North American Aerospace Defence Command or NORAD, will be expanded to include maritime surveillance, the minister said following a tour of the sprawling navy dockyard in Halifax.
But O'Connor, in his first public statement since being appointed to the defence portfolio, downplayed the significance of the new treaty, dismissing the suggestion that it could lead to U.S. warships patrolling Canadian waters.
The agreement will mean "merely a transfer of information," he told reporters in the hangar deck of the Canadian frigate HMCS Halifax.
"It doesn't change our responsibility as a country. We have to look after our own sovereignty. We have to deal with any threats coming from the sea."
Once ratified, the new treaty would allow for intelligence on shipping data and threats to the sea lanes to be piped directly into NORAD headquarters, which is jointly staffed by the Canadian and U.S. military at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo.
The expanded pact is expected to be ready for signing in May, when the existing treaty expires, O'Connor said.
NORAD was founded in 1958, at the height of the Cold War, to counter the threat of Soviet nuclear bombers and missiles. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, there's been increasing pressure to modernize the organization's role in order to monitor all external threats.
Critics have said an expanded air defence treaty could inadvertently sweep Canada into the U.S. government's controversial and largley unproven ballistic missile defence program.
The U.S. proposal envisions a series bases across the continent, where small missiles could be launched to shoot down ballistic missiles fired at North America by rogue nations.
O'Connor said the Conservative government's position on missile defence has not changed since the federal election campaign.
"If the Americans approach us to negotiate ballistic missile defence, we would enter into negotiations," he said.
"If we perceive this to be in our national interest, we would bring this to Parliament and Parliament must approve our participation."
A year ago, the former Liberal government turned down Washington's formal request to be part of the program, but changes made to NORAD agreement last summer allow its radar to track incoming missiles.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News...c=n022033A.xml
New defence treaty with U.S. to include maritime surveillance: minister
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HALIFAX (CP) - A new North American defence treaty with the United States will not compromise Canada's control over its own military, nor will it mean automatic adoption of American plans for a ballistic missile defence system, newly appointed Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Monday.
The existing binational agreement on continental air defence, the North American Aerospace Defence Command or NORAD, will be expanded to include maritime surveillance, the minister said following a tour of the sprawling navy dockyard in Halifax.
But O'Connor, in his first public statement since being appointed to the defence portfolio, downplayed the significance of the new treaty, dismissing the suggestion that it could lead to U.S. warships patrolling Canadian waters.
The agreement will mean "merely a transfer of information," he told reporters in the hangar deck of the Canadian frigate HMCS Halifax.
"It doesn't change our responsibility as a country. We have to look after our own sovereignty. We have to deal with any threats coming from the sea."
Once ratified, the new treaty would allow for intelligence on shipping data and threats to the sea lanes to be piped directly into NORAD headquarters, which is jointly staffed by the Canadian and U.S. military at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo.
The expanded pact is expected to be ready for signing in May, when the existing treaty expires, O'Connor said.
NORAD was founded in 1958, at the height of the Cold War, to counter the threat of Soviet nuclear bombers and missiles. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, there's been increasing pressure to modernize the organization's role in order to monitor all external threats.
Critics have said an expanded air defence treaty could inadvertently sweep Canada into the U.S. government's controversial and largley unproven ballistic missile defence program.
The U.S. proposal envisions a series bases across the continent, where small missiles could be launched to shoot down ballistic missiles fired at North America by rogue nations.
O'Connor said the Conservative government's position on missile defence has not changed since the federal election campaign.
"If the Americans approach us to negotiate ballistic missile defence, we would enter into negotiations," he said.
"If we perceive this to be in our national interest, we would bring this to Parliament and Parliament must approve our participation."
A year ago, the former Liberal government turned down Washington's formal request to be part of the program, but changes made to NORAD agreement last summer allow its radar to track incoming missiles.
Genius
Posts: 953
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
February 21st, 2006, 04:00 AM
I know if it came to a vote the NDP and Bloq would most likely whip their MPs to vote against this "American" idea, but I am not so sure about the moderates in the Liberal party. I'm sure a few of them were not pleased with Martins decision (which was based on poll numbers, not intillegence) to shut down talks without proper discussion.
I know if it came to a vote the NDP and Bloq would most likely whip their MPs to vote against this "American" idea, but I am not so sure about the moderates in the Liberal party. I'm sure a few of them were not pleased with Martins decision (which was based on poll numbers, not intillegence) to shut down talks without proper discussion.
Steven Hawking's Hero
Posts: 6,445
February 21st, 2006, 07:11 AM
I would hope....
That Canada's self-defense and interest in keeping it maintained would not be a competition with what the U.S. is up to.
Comparisons are not always accurate in terms of money or equipment because of the differing land masses and climate conditions in countries. Canada has a huge land mass largely unguarded and if Canada wishes to retain their sovereignty, they must consider what they themselves have to guard, not what the Australians are doing or any other country.
I think Russia would be the best comparison for land mass and climate conditions, keeping in mind how impoverished Russia is, not only because of all the wars it engaged in, but because of its enormous land mass, even without all the USSR countries attached.
I would hope....
That Canada's self-defense and interest in keeping it maintained would not be a competition with what the U.S. is up to.
Comparisons are not always accurate in terms of money or equipment because of the differing land masses and climate conditions in countries. Canada has a huge land mass largely unguarded and if Canada wishes to retain their sovereignty, they must consider what they themselves have to guard, not what the Australians are doing or any other country.
I think Russia would be the best comparison for land mass and climate conditions, keeping in mind how impoverished Russia is, not only because of all the wars it engaged in, but because of its enormous land mass, even without all the USSR countries attached.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,239
Location: Edmonton
Location: Edmonton
March 4th, 2006, 11:27 AM
Quote:
Exactly Wednesday. We have th largest coastline and only a modest Navy. Our Artic is massive and the only regular activity up there is by the Canadian Rangers. At last count I think there was around 7500 of them, clearly not enough to keep an eye on the entire Arctic.
Canada has a huge land mass largely unguarded and if Canada wishes to retain their sovereignty, they must consider what they themselves have to guard, not what the Australians are doing or any other country.
Quote:
Not really Gun, the Conservatives are looking at getting the plans for and constructing 2 WASP Class Amphibious Assault Ships. While not as large as a super-carrier, these ships serve a dual purpose. The ability to transport troops to a distant shore and dump them right in to theatre, and the ability to house a moderate air arm. If you couple WASP Class ships with the Conservatives plans to introduce both helicopter gunships, and VTOL (Verticle Take-off and Landing) Aircraft (i.e. the Harrier Jumpjet) and you've got a decent force projector. Will it happen? We'll see.
I'll be happy when we get some aircraft carriers, and not a moment before!
But alas, the very definition of a pipedream...
But alas, the very definition of a pipedream...
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 5,882
March 4th, 2006, 11:38 AM
Countries spending the most on defence 2005 ($ Billions)
United States.. 420.7
China.. 62.5
Russia ..61.9
Britain ..51.1
Japan ..44.7
France ..41.6
Germany ..30.2
India ..22
Saudi Arabia ..21.3
South Korea.. 20.7
Italy ..17.2
Australia ..13.2
Brazil.. 13.1
Canada ..10.9
Turkey ..9.8
Israel ..9.7
Netherlands.. 9.7
Spain ..8.8
Taiwan ..8.3
economist.com
Countries spending the most on defence 2005 ($ Billions)
United States.. 420.7
China.. 62.5
Russia ..61.9
Britain ..51.1
Japan ..44.7
France ..41.6
Germany ..30.2
India ..22
Saudi Arabia ..21.3
South Korea.. 20.7
Italy ..17.2
Australia ..13.2
Brazil.. 13.1
Canada ..10.9
Turkey ..9.8
Israel ..9.7
Netherlands.. 9.7
Spain ..8.8
Taiwan ..8.3
economist.com
