Largest defence budgets in the world
>the country of you
>>52019699
>>52019724
all this money spent on defense, while you're downing in debt
>>52019724
>Spending all that money on illegal wars and blowing up poor people
>Thinks this is impressive
Lmao
Americans are like those people that have shit lives/ tiny dicks so compensate for it with a huge car.
cool story rad
>>52019749
>the country of jew
U-S-A
U-S-A
U-S-A
>>52019838
All that firepower and yet still can't defeat some hurka durkas with ak47s and toyota trucks
>>52019803
Someone's butthurt :^)
>>52019838
>the country of jew
yeah, thats the USA m8
>>52019988
>his country is run by drug dealers
toppest of keks
>>52019955
I'm not really arsed about wasting money on carriers and stuff as long as we have nukes, meaning nobody will ever invade.
I literally don't get the point in spending all that money on shit like that.
You unironically have your own people die and enter extreme poverty when they get ill and are lower middle/ working class yet unrionically spent money providing healthcare for Iraqis after you blew them up.
Your country and it's military nightmare isn't something to be proud of.
>>52019838
you're the country of jew
It's funny though. Not being a pacifist or anything, but military spending is quite funny. Your country needs to invest to defend itself from someone else, now this someone else needs to invest in defence to protect itself from you, and in reaction now your country needs to up its spending to protect from the new threat, and SO ON. When does it end?
>>52019803
If Britain's Empire had kept up the same level of spending in the 1930s, WWII could have been averted.
>>52020033
The carriers are to protect sea lanes in case someone goes mental and fucks with global trade you utter mong
>>52020033
You're wrong though, nukes along aren't enough. Because we live in a globalised world we need a military which can project power abroad, that is why we are investing in carriers, overseas bases etc.
If you don't affect events then events affect you.
>>52020088
Most British spending is on the navy, how would that have averted a continental land war?
>>52020041
It ends when it becomes clear one side has an economical or strategical advantage over the other which they can gradually exploit over time. This is not some new concept; you've pretty much just described the Cold War.
>>52020088
Not like WW1 lost us money or anything amirite?
Mong.
>>52019724
>UK literally has zero carriers
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>52020103
Yes but they really don't need nearly as many.
Nobody is going to do anything as far as the US is concerned even if they halved their budget.
>>52020133
>Projecting power
Please mate, tell me when we have projected power in the last 30 years?
We've done nothing but go into absolute dogshit wars that have embarrassed us internationally
>>52020133
Deterrence. A big part of Hitler's gambit was that European great powers hadn't really maintained high military expenditure during the Depression
>>52020169
>Yes but they really don't need nearly as many.
Do you know how stupid you sound? You're speaking about something you literally know nothing about.
>>52020144
Yes, hence why having a military to deter such an event happening again is logical. Is two steps of thought really that difficult?
>>52019699
israel is small as shit but they using too bigger defense budget-_-;
>>52020140
That's the point, it never ends, cold war ended but arms race between countries still continues. If only we would live in a logical world.
>>52020030
>he belives the CIA and the Us goverment doesnt deal with drugs
delusional
>>52020199
t. Expert who has done nothing but say 'you sound stupid'.
>>52019699
United states nuff said.
>>52020213
No the logical choice would be to assume that nobody would want to relive WW1.
Also our spending was enough, it's just the Nazis got stupidly lucky during the Battle of France.
>>52020263
If given a choice between Cold War and proxy wars, or just outright nuclear war, it's pretty obvious which is the logical option
>>52020169
>Please mate, tell me when we have projected power in the last 30 years?
Take your pick
>We've done nothing but go into absolute dogshit wars that have embarrassed us internationally
Except that's wrong? You're only showing up your own stupidity. The intervention in Sierra Leone's civil war in 2001 averted a disaster and won us international praise, for example. People don't know about it because it was a success, most people prefer to concentrate on our failures.
>>52020174
>Deterrence. A big part of Hitler's gambit was that European great powers hadn't really maintained high military expenditure during the Depression
You didn't read or understand my post. Hitler went to war knowing he couldn't defeat the Royal Navy, which is where most British military spending goes. We have never maintained a large land army which is what was necessary to stop Hitler. The UK assumed France had that covered, we only maintained an expeditionary force as we have for almost our entire history.
>>52020147
but they do have, look it up
>>52020216
I'm going to assume this is bait
>>52020169
How are you enjoying the UK Achmed?
>amerilards
>defense
aahahahaahahfffjhgbjdjkbvbbhdshlrlrffpgpthhtg
>>52020356
>but they do have, look it up
No, Jew, you look it up. They have zero active or reserved carriers.
>>52020330
>War on Terror
>Afghanistan
>Iraq
>Libya
>ISIS intervention
I will concede Kosovo and Bosnia though, but it's not like they were grounbreaking in affecting us. It was just humanitarian which does absolutely nothing for us, nor fosters great relations.
>>52020356
>but they do have, look it up
We have a helicopter carrier but we don't have a proper aircraft carrier (which carriers fighter jets) in service currently.
But we are building 2 aircraft carriers, the first will come into service in 2018. The capability gap is only temporary
>>52020364
>I think we should reduce military spending to match in line with France so we can cover other shortfalls
>Achmed
Wew.
>>52020416
Those are all examples of the UK projecting power. And again you are ignoring successful ones like Sierra Leone, or the Falklands, both times the UK project power independently and to our own benefit.
>>52020469
>to match in line with France
Why the hell would you want to do that? The French lack major logistical capabilities, we do NOT want to become as weak as the French.
>>52020536
>Falklands
>30 years ago
Because our conventional forces have been shit. We've gained absolutely nothing in recent times from it and quite frankly this epic 'I'm a patriot if I like pissing money up the wall to blow up brown people' meme is getting tiring and is frustrating to say the least when you speak with American tier people.
Power projection by dropping bombs means very little in these instances mate.
>>52020620
The fact that you equate all power projection with blowing up brown people shows how stupid you are. Just because that's what we've been doing most recently, does not mean that's the only purpose of power projection. I've even given you different examples, so have other anons. You're an utter moron.
>>52020686
Yes, the moron here is the one shouting his mouth off about how everybody is stupid.
I never claimed that at all, I said that we can and should project power in other ways, I never even said we sohuldn't do it militarily, just that we should reduce the budget in line with the next European power because recently our excursions have done us no good at all.
>>52020686
I don't agree with him but fitting in moron every other sentence as if you're an enlightened military strategist is a hard to read, even on 4chan
Having said that, I disagree with him on most other counts
>>52020761
We should reduce our budget, crippling our future capabilities, because we've experienced setbacks in the recent past? How does that make any sense? Please explain why you feel the need to reduce us to the level of France. Also explain why you want to cut defence further to fund other things, a department which only consumes 5% of the government's budget
>>52020796
I'm not an "enlightened military strategist" I don't pretend to be. I've just accepted the very basic and obvious fact that we live in a globalised world and if we withdraw, we're still affected by shit that happens on the other side of the world.
US defense spending is necessary to stop europe from dragging the world into yet another world war like the fucking savages they are
>>52020995
Why would a European war develop into a world war today? Why would a conflict develop in East Asia because, say, the Russians invaded the Baltics?
>>52020886
>We should reduce our budget, crippling our future capabilities, because we've experienced setbacks in the recent past? How does that make any sense? Please explain why you feel the need to reduce us to the level of France. Also explain why you want to cut defence further to fund other things, a department which only consumes 5% of the government's budget
You're a very angry little man, aren't you?
We clearly won't agree, so I won't bring this back and forth because 4chan always ends up achieving nothing from its arguing but I will say this.
Our military, in my opinion, should be cut down. 5% is quite high and I am absolutely certain that by cutting it down by ten billion a year we will still be able to get involved when we need it and project power in other ways.
I don't think all that extra 'but we projected power by making Libya a failed state and directly contributed to the migrant crisis Gadaffi warned us about' helps.
Relax before you burst a blood vessel. And yes, that is a very nice chart, but does not do anything to solidify your point.
I wouldn't advocate not cutting 10 billion from an excessive area of the budget, even if it was only 1%, because waste is waste.
>>52019699
defense budget means almost nothing
as you can see saudia arabia has larger budget than russia but its armed forces are absolutely ineffective
saudi agrression in yemen just proves that
>>52021060
>I am absolutely certain that by cutting it down by ten billion a year we will still be able to get involved when we need it and project power in other ways.
What makes you so certain about this? Cutting it by £10 billion a year is an even bigger real-terms cut than the military endured after 2010 from the government's austerity package. There is no way the UK could "get involved when we need to" after cuts like that.
Can you please explain WHERE these cuts would fall on the British military if you're so sure they wouldn't affect the ability to project power? Tell us what you would cut so we can judge your idea better.
>>52021238
I'm not carrying this on friend of the loaded questions.
I think you're missing some basic points here and I'm not going to sit and type out what I think should be slashed so you can repeat what is, at the end of the day, no matter how much you think otherwise, your opinion.
Thanks for your input. Try and stay a little calmer next time.
>>52020303
No war is the logical option. In a logical world humans wouldn't need military force to defend them from foreign military. But we aren't very good when it comes to logic, also prisoners of our own evolution.
>>52021302
You said you're "absolutely certain" that with an annual £10 billion cut we could still get involved abroad. It's natural for me to question your assumptions if you're so certain.
I'll give you some background. From 2010 to 2015 defence experienced an 8% real terms cut of its budget. This meant losing aircraft carriers, the entire Harrier fleet of ~40 fighters, losing all maritime patrol aircraft, selling off some frigates and more.
That was an 8% cut. You are proposing a 22% cut, annually, in cash terms (after inflation it would be even more), on TOP of that 8% cut. You suggest that this 22% additional cut to the budget would still allow us to "get involved" globally.
Unsurprisingly you can't explain what you would cut, or how your idea even makes sense. You probably don't realise what such a reduction would reduce the British military to being.
>>52019699
>Easily 50% of the budget is wasted solely to keep the status quo
>Wonder why there is no money to keep your raods paved or your veterans paid
>>52021526
This is some next level autism mate, he's already told you he's leaving it there.
You're both morons, you're just way more autistic
>Inb4 you reply with stats about the miltary
>>52021655
>he's already told you
>Get BTFO with facts
>Pretend you're someone else
>>52019838
>Have all this
>Fail to win war against goat fucking cave men
>>52021707
>Call them both autistic morons
>Call one more autistic for just spewing out facts when the other guy has said he's not interested
>I am the other guy somehow
Can you read?
>>52020035
We're the country of the jewed
pax americana desu ty fatties
>>52021655
So if someone says they're stopping, their arguments should remain unchallenged? Why? I don't care if you like my argument or not, I don't care if you think I'm autistic. It's 4chan. If anyone is suggesting further cuts it is well worth putting them into context with the previous government cuts, so anons can understand the magnitude of what is being suggested. Taken alone, numbers like "£10 billion" don't mean anything to anyone.
>>52021874
I just meant I don't think it's worth wasting your time considering it's
a)4chan, as you said
b) It's not gonna get read by anybody who you're disagreeing with, most likely
Suit yourself mate
stfu
>USA does all the military spending so the rest of NATO doesn't have to
Based desu
>>52021960
I've read it, everything desu.
Have a heart for the lurkers
>>52019699
Hey you, yes you the OP
Don't you ever get bored of posting the same shit over and over again, arguing with the same people the same way about the same bullshit for the millionth time ?
If not, you're one seriously autistic brit
>>52022383
>french faggot that always posts cat reaction images
>>52021960
Arguing with people is fun on here because the board is so fast, and occasionally someone informed replies and challenges my opinion, which usually means I learn something. I've learnt a lot from /int/ by arguing with people. Don't worry about me m8.
>>52020276
The U.S. has 10 carriers, give or take depending on their commission/decommissioning.
They have 5 fleets to ensure the open seas.
1 carrier is on operation, 1 carrier is undergoing repairs/maintenance at any one time. - the same reason you are buying 2 carriers.
The fleet never has to be without a carrier presence.
It's not that hard to understand, Jim.
>>52020469
>France is reversing cuts to its military since the Paris Attacks
haha guys we should do what France isn't doing any more
Never mind the fact your Government literally can't cut below 2% of GDP without the Tory backbenchers fucking you with another election.
>>52021655
>This is some next level autism mate, he's already told you he's leaving it there.
>if someone states an unsupportable position and refuses to answer questions on it, that means you can't reply to it
That's not how debates work, fucko.
>>52022686
Yes exactly. I think the ratio for the USN's carriers is closer to 1:3. With each group of 3 they normally have: one in proper maintenance (usually 16 months in the dry dock), one in port or in training manoeuvres off the coast, and one active.
In peace time the Americans usually have just 3 carriers abroad on active duty. These are present in: the Gulf, East Asia (near Taiwan) and the Atlantic. Map:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=zSsVCpdSzpMk.kE9fIao5R92c&hl=en_US
Some of the carriers in port are in "Planned Incremental Availability" meaning they could be sent out if need be, but only those 3 active carriers are available straight away.
The UK can only achieve the 1:2 ratio because the British carriers are less maintenance-intensive than the American carriers, partly by design and partly because they are less complex machines (non-nuclear, no catapults, smaller).
