U.S. Military Spending Dwarfs China's

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
72
Ottawa ,Canada
The Pentagon's Monster in the Mirror

U.S. Military Spending Dwarfs China's

April 15, 2009 By Eric Stoner


Eric Stoner's ZSpace Page

Join ZSpace
With the release of its annual report on China's military capabilities at the end of March, the Pentagon is doing its part to keep alive the threat of the red menace.

China's official military budget jumped to $60 billion, an 18 percent increase over last year, but US officials warned that the actual figure is somewhere between $105 and $150 billion annually.

Without a hint of irony, the report expresses concern about, "the purposes to which China's current and future military power will be applied," and suggests that Beijing could even use its armed forces "to ensure access to resources or enforce claims to disputed territories."

Sound familiar? Well, Washington apparently needs to relearn the basic moral principle of universality: What is wrong for others to do, must also be wrong for us.

In February, the Obama administration requested a mind-boggling $664 billion for the US military over the next fiscal year - more than 10 times China's official budget. In fact, the US spends roughly the same amount on "defense" each year as every other country in the world combined, according to the authoritative data of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

And much like China, Washington's accounting for such things is notoriously lacking in transparency. Many expenses that the average person would consider defense-related - such as funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Energy's maintenance of the nuclear stockpile, military aid to allies, and the share of interest payments on the national debt that can be attributed to the past military spending - are hidden in other parts of the federal budget. When all of these costly extras are added up, the United States' unofficial military budget tops out at more than $1 trillion.

To make it simple, Robert Higgs, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, has written, "A well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon's (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it."

And who outside of our borders would say that the "purposes" of the US military machine are benign or that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with "natural resources"? It'd be hard for anyone to take that argument seriously while our troops occupy two countries and bomb a third with unmanned drones on a weekly basis.

The truth is that the vast sums allocated by both the US and China for future wars is a tragic waste of finite resources, especially given the spiraling financial and ecological crises that we face. The trade-offs must be laid bare. Do we want to spend more on F-35 Joint Strike Fighters - at a staggering $100 million a piece - or use that money for food and shelter for the millions who have been driven into poverty due to the economic collapse? Do we want to spend another $2 billion each month for the next 5 or 10 years to fight the war in Afghanistan, or should that money be used to further research into alternative energy and build a high-speed rail system across the country? We simply cannot have it all.

Senator Barney Frank is one of the only legislators on Capitol Hill who has been willing to tackle this issue. For months, he has been avidly pushing for a 25 percent cut to the military budget. While his proposal is seen as radical by most in Congress, the Pentagon budget could take a 40 percent hit and its funding would only be back to where it was at the end of Clinton's last term - thanks to President Bush's eight year military spending binge.

Until the United States acknowledges the monster in the mirror and begins to dramatically cut its bloated military budget, President Obama's soaring rhetoric about the need for a different, more respectful relationship with the rest of the world will unfortunately remain hollow words.

And if China is ever to slow or reduce its military spending, as the sole military power in the world, the US must lead by example.


Eric Stoner is a freelance journalist based in New York, and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. His articles have appeared in The Guardian, Mother Jones and The Nation. He can be contacted through his website:
 

El Barto

les fesses a l'aire
Feb 11, 2007
5,959
66
48
Quebec
The truth is that the vast sums allocated by both the US and China for future wars is a tragic waste of finite resources, especially given the spiraling financial and ecological crises that we face.



Sounds like no ones listening.. Military race with China is suicide. China's man power alone (military) cannot be matched. If they wish to fight it should be on an economic field. Pretty soon if not right now the U.S. won't be able to support a military at all.
 

RanchHand

Electoral Member
Feb 22, 2009
209
8
18
USA
Next time your reading Mother Jones, tell Stoner that the US military budget is larger than the rest of the world combined. What do you suppose a private in Mao's army earns per year vs a US grunt?

"And if China is ever to slow or reduce its military spending, as the sole military power in the world, the US must lead by example. "


Hmmm. Pretty simple. So even if the US military budget is vastly larger than the Chicom's, and the Chicoms don't report their actual spending, are you saying that the Chicoms will cut their military spending in kind? Or will the Chicoms have an easier time at reaching parity?
I await your cut and paste on this.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
As long as China continues to maintain a huge military as they do, we have to at least maintain a lead in military technology, we could never hope to over come their manpower. China has been trying to kill us and our pets with tainted food and lead painted children's toys, poison laced wall board (that has driven many from their homes). How can we hope to trust them.

AP IMPACT: Chinese drywall poses potential risks

Mattel Recalls More Chinese-Made Toys - washingtonpost.com

China admits tainted food link - USATODAY.com
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
The truth is that the vast sums allocated by both the US and China for future wars is a tragic waste of finite resources, especially given the spiraling financial and ecological crises that we face.



Sounds like no ones listening.. Military race with China is suicide. China's man power alone (military) cannot be matched. If they wish to fight it should be on an economic field. Pretty soon if not right now the U.S. won't be able to support a military at all.

Manpower is no longer holds the importance it once did........

Remember Gulf War One? 150,000 Iraqi dead, 150 Allied dead.

Their manpower didn't help much.

That is why China, an emerging fascist superpower, needs to be cut off from Westerm technology (I know, hopeless)......

We've blown it where China is concerned. She should have been contained militarily, isolated economically and ostrasized diplomatically..........
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Next time your reading Mother Jones, tell Stoner that the US military budget is larger than the rest of the world combined. What do you suppose a private in Mao's army earns per year vs a US grunt?

"And if China is ever to slow or reduce its military spending, as the sole military power in the world, the US must lead by example. "


Hmmm. Pretty simple. So even if the US military budget is vastly larger than the Chicom's, and the Chicoms don't report their actual spending, are you saying that the Chicoms will cut their military spending in kind? Or will the Chicoms have an easier time at reaching parity?
I await your cut and paste on this.

Exactly and exactly
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Manpower is no longer holds the importance it once did........

Remember Gulf War One? 150,000 Iraqi dead, 150 Allied dead.

Their manpower didn't help much.

That is why China, an emerging fascist superpower, needs to be cut off from Westerm technology (I know, hopeless)......

We've blown it where China is concerned. She should have been contained militarily, isolated economically and ostrasized diplomatically..........

What good were the high-tech toys in Vietnam?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
We can sure tell that the peaceful religions of Christ and the Buddha are dead. Forget about love thy neighbour. Now it's al about us vs. them.

Is China planning a land invasion of Canada anytime soon?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Who cares if China has a more powerful military. That'll just mean a larger economic burden for them too. A small military is an economic advantge for a country.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Who cares if China has a more powerful military. That'll just mean a larger economic burden for them too. A small military is an economic advantge for a country.


Except when a country with a strong military wants what you have. You won't be able to talk them out of conquering you, no time outs or turn the other cheak.
 

El Barto

les fesses a l'aire
Feb 11, 2007
5,959
66
48
Quebec
134,813,023Available Military Manpower667,657,509
109,305,756Available Personnel Fit for Military Service 550,265,789
4,180,074Average Yearly Available Military Manpower25,848,582
what's this? the US has 1 /3 of its population available for fighting? Were diapers included in that count?
 

RanchHand

Electoral Member
Feb 22, 2009
209
8
18
USA
The US never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was lost because of politics. By then war had changed and it was no longer tolerable to completely level all of Hanoi which the US could have done. Rooting them out of Cambodia and Laos had to be done clandestinely for the most part. I certainly have to give the bastards credit though.

Those were the good old days. I remember a total of 2 or 3 suicide buddhists. No one seriously thought they would follow us back to the US. In fact, the biggest threat to the 'homeland' came from American citizens.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
...and coffee cans filled with explosive and nails are still knocking you down. Guts and patience are the weapons they'll kick your asses with every time.

They only kicked our butts because of the media. Someday we will relearn how to gag the media again. When a goverment, any government puts it's soldiers in harms way, do not under any circumstances allow the media to help kill them also, they have enough problems to deal with. Don't insult them when they return, in fact praise them for at least having the courage to do something you may not have had the courage to do.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
The US never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was lost because of politics. By then war had changed and it was no longer tolerable to completely level all of Hanoi which the US could have done. Rooting them out of Cambodia and Laos had to be done clandestinely for the most part. I certainly have to give the bastards credit though.

Those were the good old days. I remember a total of 2 or 3 suicide buddhists. No one seriously thought they would follow us back to the US. In fact, the biggest threat to the 'homeland' came from American citizens.

Did they get to keep any of the territory for which they fought? Are the Stars and Stripes flying over Saigon? It was lost to politics alright. Nationalism....
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
They only kicked our butts because of the media. Someday we will relearn how to gag the media again. When a goverment, any government puts it's soldiers in harms way, do not under any circumstances allow the media to help kill them also, they have enough problems to deal with. Don't insult them when they return, in fact praise them for at least having the courage to do something you may not have had the courage to do.

A thousand and one excuses are no explanation for why you can't command respect. They have guts enough to meet you face to face. You stand off over the safety of a horizon and kill anyone in the vicinity. Even if you did get the illusion of a win and you scare the hell out of anyone around you, you still won't be able to walk alone. I praise the troops. It's the methods I detest.