1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.
2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.
3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.
4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.
5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.
6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.
Direct Image Links Only Only direct links to .png, .jpg, and .jpeg image formats are permitted.
Educational Infographics Only Infographics must aim to educate and inform with structured content. Purely narrative or non-informative infographics may be removed.
Serious Guides Only Nonserious or comedy-based guides will be removed.
No Harmful Content Guides promoting dangerous or harmful activities/materials will be removed. This includes content intended to cause harm to others.
By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!
Hold up. I see three NATO countries in that top-spending list, yet Trump is crying that they don't spend enough? It seems, as everyone seems to agree, that the problem is the US spends way too much. But since US "defense" spending is an obvious grift to shift public money to private pockets this isn't too surprising.
Well he wants to dial up the grift of shifting other nato members' public money into US MIC private pockets
Stop calling it defense.
The government did already
It's officially war spending now.
Socialize (military) spending, vassalize smaller countries, privatize wealth, that's the american way of running businesses
2 Trillions that could have been invested in education, science and welfare instead.
and health. Don't forget health. Americans would actually SAVE money if they socialised healthcare.
I think it's a somewhat credible theory I've heard that a large portion of our "defense" spending goes towards larger and larger bribes to countries around the world either to not go to war or to maintain trade relations with the United States in order to maintain U.S. hegemony.
Isn't it "War Spending" now?
alwayswasmeme.jpg
One thing to keep in mind is that defense spending tends to rely heavily on local provision. You generally can't just import soldiers, and keeping military-industrial supply chains local or at minimum trusted is also a requirement. So using something like a PPP-adjusted figure rather than a nominal figure is probably going to be closer to what you're actually buying, and that rather considerably diminishes the difference.
kagis for someone discussing the matter
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/chinas-military-rise-comparative-military-spending-china-and-us
Given current data, China’s military expenditure in PPP terms is estimated to be $541 billion, or 59% of US spending, and its equipment levels are only 42% of US levels. Comparing trends over time shows that the US has matched China in recent years, albeit at the cost of a much higher defence burden.
The underlying mechanism here is that China has a lot of people who will work for rather-lower wages than in the US, which means that each nominal dollar China budgets for their military can buy them more military capacity than in the US, via taking advantage of those lower wages.
If the US had a large supply of workers willing to work at Chinese wages, and could use them to drive its military and military-industrial system, that wouldn't be a factor.
China also owns their own resources while the US doesn’t so the US has to pay a middle man to build anything.
Also, this probably includes what the US sells.
"War" spending, now.
Edit: I am slow
Who knows how much of that money is completely wasted. Remember pizzas for $500 USD, or whatever the exact price was?
its "necessary" once you figure out that when people get tired of the complications caused by it, they are willing to use the military to quash discent on behalf of the elite class, to maintain control.
all i know is, i play warhammer total war 3 a lot. and when my skavens are starving and start an uprising, i just send a lord with his army to quash the discenters, and maintain control.
simple as.
And most of it goes either into super inflated prices for the most silly things, or into projects that no one can talk about and are unsupervised.
Depends on how you define "necessary".
More than actual use, the American military is about "implied threat"
"Do as we say, or else".
Its always been that way. Without the implied threat, the other world leaders would have told cheetolini to pound sand on day one.
Isn't the USA numbers very skewed because they include like healthcare and pensions in their numbers, even for former soldiers, while say europeans don't?
Also, (and I'm no kind of expert) it seems there's a lot of graft involved in the spending, such as $67 charged for a screw, and that kind of thing. A good bit of it due to a kickback-type arrangement between the politicians involved (think Dick Cheney) and the defense contractors who get awarded the deals.
Some of those "$50 screw" numbers come from cancelling projects with high total cost. A contract might be paid to produce a thousand of something and get cancelled after making 10 of them, inflating the per unit cost by a ton
Thanks for the clarification. I was indeed just parroting what I'd heard & read several times, without really understanding the mechanisms involved.
And it virtually only ever goes up. More and more of our labor is going towards feeding the imperial war machine, while social services are gutted. Our corrupt politicians just want to line the pockets of the corporations that make bombs, and they start conflicts around the globe to justify it. The primary function of the military is essentially money laundering, to channel public funds into private hands.
at least half goes to defense contractors.
Pretty sure its over half. Edit: Yup. 54% for years 2020-2024.
We have a welfare program for already rich corporations larger than most nations GDP.
The United States provides security guarantees for most of the western world. That was the entire point of post-WWII reconstruction.
The US will provide security guarantees. Participating countries will provide free market access to their citizens.
- The Marshall Plan
The US has been in a position to overspend (proportionally) on defense due to having the strongest economy basically since WWII. Other countries are able to invest in their own economy, innovation or infrastructure without needing to spend money on defense.
Ignoring any Trump jingoism, look at NATO expenditures. These countries agreed to a certain level of spending based on their GDP so the US wasn’t the sole guarantor, but no one met their obligations for decades.
The United States provides security guarantees for most of the western world
This is just American exceptionalism. The west hasn't waged a "defensive" war since 1945, all it's done with its militaries is destroy other countries: Vietnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Yugoslavia are just a few examples that come to mind, tens of millions of lives lost and tens of millions more ruined just in these conflicts.
The world would be a far, far, FAR better place if the west didn't have this level of military capabilities.
The US is completely free to reduce their spending to match the rest of NATO but does not.
We can make an argument about net expenditures.
Is the US carrying too much of the burden? If that is true AND the US wants to reduce its spending, then other nations need to increase theirs to keep the net expenditure close to before.
Let’s hand wave discussions on waste in procurement (a big issue for the US DOD). Same as we’ll hand wave the veteran benefits portion of expenditures.
If we don’t see that commensurate expenditure, then what becomes of the NATO security guarantee?
We can’t be naive enough to expect all adversaries to make similar reductions in their military spending.
Winning
*war
It's gonna be funny though when the aliens finally show up and obliterate the US without even trying. lmao
I mean.
I'm not sure the aliens will ever show up.
Peter G. Peterson
The most "Booty McBootface" type white name I've seen.