Largest defence budgets in the world 2015
bloo blobe :D
>>55739978
Netherlands is ~$9 billion
>>55739478
There was a documentary a while back about a US-Australian naval exercise with our Collins-class submarines, apparently one of them wasn't operational in time so they have to stick some wooden panels over it.
>>55739978
>be Australian
>spill your 6 ounce beer at the bar (only €15)
>entire country floods
>>55739478
>China still spending a fifth of what we spend
Why is everyone in this country freaking out about their military buildup? It's still below 2% of their GDP.
>>55739478
>France
Delete this
>>55741094
Until France won't have a bigger budget than the UK, he won't stop posting this
>>55741169
With the pound in the dumps, it's about to be worse as a percent of GDP.
>>55741169
I don't care about the French budget
>>55741298
Currency fluctuations don't have any affect on the percent of GDP. Weaker or stronger pound affects the dollar value of the budget. The percent of GDP spent is decided by government
>>55741568
Oh so the budget tracks the percent? That seems unlikely. They just budget an absolute amount at the end of each fiscal year, right?
Pound is low. Therefore the British economy magically is less powerful even though it makes the exact same amount (if not more) of stuff as it did a month ago.
Or is your nominal being an accurate measure of economic power meme, just a meme?
>>55740551
I don't think they spend a lot on wages, contrary to america.
And nobody is saying they spend the same of USA, but it's growing fast and their intentions unclear.
>>55741735
>Oh so the budget tracks the percent? That seems unlikely.
>Oh so the budget tracks the percent? That seems unlikely.
>Oh so the budget tracks the percent? That seems unlikely.
>Oh so the budget tracks the percent? That seems unlikely.
>>55742002
That means it'll at least be 2% each fiscal year.
They don't just adjust the absolute spending each day.
>>55739478
>not comparing per capita
haha ok lad
>>55741838
Okay. That doesn't change the fact they spend a lot less as a percent of GDP than most of NATO. Only 1.5%. Just because it went from $40 billion to $150 billion in ten years, doesn't matter. The economy grew that much during that period.
Their intentions are clear. We want Taiwan. We want control of the West Pacific. We want to be the top dog. Don't get in our way and nothing will happen.
>>55742452
>not comparing per capita
what's this supposed to show
will ? intent ?
saudia arabia has the highest per capita spending and it's still weak as shit
>>55742525
And what does absolute numbers show? If your country is gigantic and have over a million soldiers vs a small country with a couple of hundred thousand soldiers matters very much. Similarly, a country of 66 million that instantly surrenders regardless of their military budget size, it's more interesting to see how much money every person.
>>55742845
*every person wastes on it
>>55742452
Per capita is fucking irrelevant. If you have ten times the army and hundred times the population as another country, guess what? Your army is still ten times bigger. It's not like the smaller nation gets some cosmic damage buff to level the playing field.
>>55742845
Here you go Sven
FYI these figures are from SIPRI not the IISS (like OP)
I want to get raped by China so badly.
>>55742916
But it does matter. If your country is gigantic it's going to take more men to protect it and you'll have to procure more equipment to equip it. This is not risk or europe universalis, you don't fucking field every soldier you have in one spot. That's why the USA is much much stronger militarily than China or North Korea, even though their armies are bigger in terms of manpower.
>>55741169
France is weak. Always weak. Getting weaker.
>>55742985
Good lad
>>55741735
>>55741735
>Or is your nominal being an accurate measure of economic power meme, just a meme?
I'm the poster you were referring to with this. Yes, I think a weaker pound does reduce our economic power. But I am not worried because I don't think the pound will stay weak. This was always going to happen prior to a big referendum.
>>55742991
I don't understand how you can fail to grasp this simple point. If your armed forces are overall 'bigger', by whatever metric you want to use, you will win in a straight fight against a smaller opponent and will exert more influence on the world stage. Period. America's army is bigger/greater/more than China's or North Korea's if you look at the whole picture, not just manpower.
>>55743168
You're talking past each other
Sven is trying to say that being able to afford to spend more per person allows you to be more powerful, which is how the USA is currently more powerful than China.
You are saying manpower isn't the whole story, which is the same thing.
>Brazil
Only relevant country in Latin America as always
Suck it chicanos
>>55743376
>>55739478
mfw Turkey is in none of these lists yet it has the 10. most powerful army
>>55743745
I'm surprised you're not there. You must have narrowly missed out on 15th place.
>>55744013
Our budgets seems to change a lot. In 2014 our military expenditures was in top 15 then in 2015 it's not. And then again according to some sources we are again in top 15 in 2016.
>>55744287
It's not your budget it's the calculation of what counts as military spending
Turkey is 15th in the SIPRI list for last year. SIPRI includes paramilitary forces that are used for civilian policing. The IISS does not.
So in the SIPRI ranking, countries like Russia, France, Italy, China and Turkey rank higher than they do in the IISS ranking.
Compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
>>55744434
hmm yeah that could be why
