US, And Global, Military Spending Summed Up In One Chart

Tyler Durden's picture

While we previously noted the relative stability (but absolute surge) in US military spending over the past few decades, the scale of what the world's peace-keeping, red-line enforcing, hypocrisy-packed nation spends in context to the rest of the world...


Source: AFP

We previously put the US military budget in context over time...



And unless we get some serious military conflict to blame a reflation on, and if U.S. military spending were to revert to its 2000 level over the next five years, as President Obama had proposed, and the rest of the world were to continue spending the same portion of its GDP on the military, U.S. military spending as a share of the global total would decline sharply, to just under 30 percent.

U.S. Military Spending Share of Global Total

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
prains's picture

add prison spending to the chart and it's WTF, time!

RafterManFMJ's picture

If we didn't spend so much on defense those wily Canadians and sodden Mexican would be overrunning us.

prains's picture

LOL, it's actually the opposite, haven't met more people from Virginia (in Alberta) than the last time i was in Virginia...and they ain't here for the hockey

James_Cole's picture


U.S. military spending as a share of the global total would decline sharply, to just under 30 percent.

Except... the 'official' numbers cited are pure horseshit.


TeamDepends's picture

And what do we get for our hard earned dollars?  This place is still CRAWLIN' with lucies....

SoberOne's picture

Reduce spending ib MIC and the terrsts win, apparently. They hate us for our illusion of freedom.

kaiserhoff's picture

we previously noted the relative stability (but absolute surge)

I can almost parse what she means by that,

  but damn it's piss poor writing.  It probably means that defense spending has not declined, while the private sector has.

True, but dishonest, deceptive, and a crazy way to look at the world.  Apply the same standard to welfare or sick care, and see what you get.

Oracle 911's picture

@ spending:

Yeah it is the biggest, but what about the efficiency of the spending?

Lets see it is the lowest among the top 3, I suspect it is actually closer to the Czechs efficiency (the gov is quiet corrupt there and it is in NATO).

OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

Thank you. Iraq "war costs" doesn't even count things like bullets.

rbg81's picture

How much of our defense budget goes to PowerPoint presentations?   I'll bet at least 33%.

intric8's picture

Check out Russia at a measly 5%. Wow, russia is such a war mongering country! Omg, lets rush some 'lethal aid' to poland to counter their massive military expenditures! Gelauf!

rbg81's picture

My point is that, despite our large expenditures, I'll bet we get less in terms of weapons, ammo, and boots on the ground per dollar than any other country. Wny? Because a lot of our defense $$ is eaten up by things like cost overruns, military and civilian benefits, Beltway bandits, contract churn, Congressionally mandated pork, and even social programs.  As as former military (AF) officer, so I've seen this from the inside.  Our system has an enormous amount of waste and inefficiency.  In any non-Western country, people would be executed, if necessary, to fix these problems.

FredFlintstone's picture

Yep. I was a consultant to the DoD for a while. Unfuckingbelievable waste out there. The DoD was all over it saying things like "we might as well spend all of this money allotted to us since we probably wont ever get another Milcon project in our lifetimes."

Jreb's picture

I can't speak for the Mexicans but come about mid January even California looks pretty appealing. I mean can you blame us?

kurt's picture

CFR Propaganda. The last chart. This fake news simultaneously taps into your alarm over military spending and at the same time diffuses the concern by implying in the last chart that everything's fixed and on the way down. So, look through the veil: false flag coming.

Payne's picture

HOW does the Military Industrial Complex create a flase flag to prop up the Petro dollar or World Reserve Currency status,  I have not heard of any scenario that would not do the opposite.  The Petro dollar is dying and there is little to do to stop it.

Keyser's picture

It's an old tactic that has worked in the past, but it won't work this time. The clock has run out.   

savagegoose's picture

the petro in petrodollar, is now russian

Cattender's picture

Don't forget the Fucking TSA..

Unknown User's picture

China is looking for trouble...

RaiZH's picture

Here was me hoping they'd be dumping the dollar next week. 

richsob's picture

And most people on this website think Russia would kick the U.S. and its allies asses if things get hot. Ridiculous. NOBODY wants a hot, massive war....especially Putin. 1. He's no monster who wants to destroy the world. 2. He knows he wouldn't win that kind of war. 3. He knows the Russian people wouldn't support it. Now if we can just get past the next couple of years with an idiot as U.S. President we might be all right.

prains's picture

....are you absolutely sure there's not another idiot waiting to be given the job in a couple of years, or does it all of a sudden just get so much better two years from now because some useless toad gets to wear the magic cuff links?



css1971's picture

Well, there's military spending on effective measures, then there's military spending on the F22 Raptor.

Not the same thing at all.

Leto II's picture

The F22 Raptor is actually pretty effective...the F35 on the otherhand is the biggest boonedoggle in the history of Military projects.

"the Pentagon’s supposedly “all weather” F-35 Lightning II, ironically, cannot fly within 25 miles of lightning"

NDXTrader's picture

This is true. Many around here actually think the US would be in trouble in any kind of "conventional" war. It's an anti-US fantasy. It's likely that the US could fight the rest of the world combined to a draw in such a war. The US air superiority is just massive and would destroy the Russian and Chinese air forces in the first 24 hours. The problem the US has is asymmetrical war and governing what it overruns

James_Cole's picture

How many wars has the US won lately? How many has Russia lost.....ever?

NDXTrader's picture

Conventional wars? All of them. Guerrilla wars...not doing as well

James_Cole's picture

All of them? Really? You must have a unique definition of 'conventional war.' 

NDXTrader's picture

Not really. Vietnam was not a conventional war. I will give you that Korea was a draw. Conventional military won in both Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan, but it was the governing afterwards and guerrilla warfare that lost the conflict. Is I that so hard to understand?

NDXTrader's picture

And the US never lost a major conventional conflict in Vietnam including to Chinese troops. When the enemy doesn't wear uniforms and could be anyone is when they struggle

James_Cole's picture

Conventional military won in both Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan

Who was the US looking to fight in Afghanistan anyway?? I was unware of it being the Afghan military.

And US defeated Saddam sure, but they lost Iraq. 

Calling both conflicts conventional wars is a real stretch. 

NDXTrader's picture

So, taking nukes out of the equation since everyone loses. Your position is that Russia could take on the US in a ground war? That's deluded. The US would have total air superiority before the Russian Air Force got off the ground and the Russian Navy would never make it out of port. I think US foreign policy is insane, but those are just facts

James_Cole's picture

Your position is that Russia could take on the US in a ground war? 

Yes. US has never fought a war toe to toe unless the enemy is severely mismatched, Russia has. No chance Americans could take on Russians on Russian soil especially considering the shape of the troops at this point. 

US bombed the shit out of Vietnam - not exactly a military equal - and still lost. 

NDXTrader's picture

US troops would never, and wouldn't have to, set foot on Russian soil. Wars are fought in the air now, where the US has such an advantage it's not even a contest

James_Cole's picture

 Wars are fought in the air now, where the US has such an advantage it's not even a contest

US bombs Russia to hell and the Russians wave the white flag in defeat lol

The allies withdrew in 1920.

bonin006's picture

I agree. If the US started to bomb Russia the Nukes would be comming at us in no time.

optimator's picture

The 1941 Luftwaffe wiped out the Russian Air Force, achieved air superiority, and bottled up the Russian Fleet in Murmansk and Leningrad.  How'd that work out?

nmewn's picture

I love these discussions of which socialist tyrant would win in a war with each other.

Putin or Obama.

Lemme go run grab my popcorn ;-)

NDXTrader's picture

Russia has generally lost 6 wars. The Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars, the Russian-Manchu Border Conflicts, the French Revolutionary Wars, the Russo-Japanese War, World War I and the Soviet War in Afghanistan.

James_Cole's picture

I meant in context of US invading Russia. Russia has a very good track record of not being defeated and the US has a good (recent) track record of not winning. If Russia was aiming to invade US obviously it would be a different story. 

NDXTrader's picture

Maybe we should define victory. Of course the US isn't going to plant a flag in Moscow. As far as completely destroying their military assets, yes the US could do that quite easily

thestarl's picture 

And you think Vlad would just sit on his arse and let this happen without this response

Keloid's picture

Of course not. He would place a priority call to the smoking hole formerly known as the Kremlin.

James_Cole's picture

 As far as completely destroying their military assets, yes the US could do that quite easily

Quite obviously not the case considering Russia would move to Nuclear immediately. If you're defining victory as military annihilation it's impossible. It would be an unconventional war and the US wouldn't win. 

edotabin's picture

They also had some trouble with Finland and the Finns are only about 5 million.

orez65's picture

"How many has Russia lost.....ever?"

They lost in Afghanistan in 1989.

The Soviet Union collapased in 1991.

Pretty lousy record in the last 25 years!

Atticus Finch's picture

Also, its leadership lacks all integrity and has forgotten or never cared about the notion of a Constitutional republic.

Bazza McKenzie's picture

You have a very naive view of war.  It really does matter where the war is being fought.  The US blue water navy is largely irrelevant to a ground war with Russia in Europe, which is the only place any conflict with Russia will occur.  And Russia has little trade outside the EuroAsian land mass to interdict.

Modern fighter aircraft are useless without convenient bases, as are troops.  And the way the US fights they all require massive logistics.  Which might be fine for the US if it were fighting Russia in Germany, which it won't be, not so fine if it is fighting Russia in eastern Europe where the logistics and home territory advantage supports Russia.

The US stripped its assets in Europe to support its adventures in the ME and Afghanistan.  Those assets cannot be quickly replaced.

The US air superiority is "massive" when it is fighting militarily unsophisticated countries like Libya, Syria and Afghanistan.  If it attempts to fight Russia or China on their home territory it will be facing not just strong air forces but very strong anti-aircraft ground-based defences.