Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
world

Conflicts push global military spending to all-time high: report

54 Comments
By Johannes LEDEL

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2024 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


54 Comments
Login to comment

There is no conflict that cannot be solved with diplomacy and negotiation. The vast majority of people in every country on the planet don't want war. So, who is pushing it? Hint: the warmongers are not ever going to appear on the battlefield. They are in safe, air-conditioned offices. The trick they use is "we need defence against them guys over there," and "them guys over there" are told that they need defence against us. And the excuse is "them guys over there are not the same as us, not really human, so it's OK to kill them!"

One planet, guys! That's all we got. Nowhere else to go. If Mars happens, it will not be for several hundred years if at all. Let's work at ways to get on.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

BertieWooster

The trick they use is "we need defence against them guys over there,"

When "those guys over there" are actively invading a sovereign country, it makes a good case to increase military spending.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

The only ones who benefit from this military spending are the weapons manufacturers, oh, and the politicians who get back handers. I bet they are all clapping each other with joy right now.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

With the war in Ukraine being "nowhere close to an end," as well as the current situation in the Middle East and heightened tensions in Asia, Tian said he believed countries were likely to continue boosting their militaries.

Smedley Butler, one of the doughtiest warriors of the 20th century already told us war is a racket.

https://reason.com/2022/07/28/the-progressive-imperialism-of-smedley-butler/

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The United States spends $1 trillion annually on its defense budget, which is a staggering amount of taxpayer money. The country has 11 carriers, each with its own carrier force.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Sadly America is no wiser today decades after this warning from a decorated military leader and president.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

It's a shame so much money is spent on weapons of war that could be much better spent on helping all the world's citizens. After 300,000 years of man's existence I keep waiting for humanity to grow up. Unfortunately it seems the leaders we choose are stuck in perpetual childish pursuits.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

And the US dollar rate is extremely happy!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

US politicians wax lyrical about their right to self-defense and 'national security'. Ditto for Israel.

Moscow enjoys these very same rights and is exercising them. Certain quarters cannot accept this fact but it is the truth.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Humans are sooooo dumb.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Approximately 2% or 2 million people in the American workforce are employed by the military industry.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

BertieWoosterToday 12:33 pm JST

There is no conflict that cannot be solved with diplomacy and negotiation.

A nice thought, but of zero use once a dictator starts rolling his tanks across your border.

Some people just do not respond to words, and do not keep their promises. And when "diplomacy and negotiation" turns into appeasement, the appeaser simply makes the situation worse (cf. Munich Agreement in 1938, Western response to Russia's invasion of Crimea in 2014, and countless other cases).

Human history -- and present -- has shown that force, or the possibility of force (deterrent), is needed, as bad people don't simply stop of their own accord.

Hint: the warmongers are not ever going to appear on the battlefield.

You're right. Putin won't. Xi won't. Kim Jong Un won't.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

JJE

US politicians wax lyrical about their right to self-defense and 'national security'. Ditto for Israel.

Moscow enjoys these very same rights and is exercising them.

Invasion of sovereign nation isn't self-defence or 'national security'. It's imperialism.

Certain quarters cannot accept this fact but it is the truth.

That's because it isn't true.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Moscow enjoys these very same rights and is exercising them. Certain quarters cannot accept this fact but it is the truth.

Russia like every other country does have a right to self defence.

And just like every other country that does not include the right to invade neighboring countries just because they don't like you.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

The United States spends $1 trillion annually on its defense budget, which is a staggering amount of taxpayer money. The country has 11 carriers, each with its own carrier force.

The US provides security for numerous other countries--this is a staggering concept.

For example, the US provides military protection for the UK, and has several military bases on UK soil!!!

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

For example, the US provides military protection for the UK, and has several military bases on UK soil!!!

When you’re the best of the best they all want you.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

There is no conflict that cannot be solved with diplomacy and negotiation.

Tell, Hamas and Israel that. Tell Haiti and South Africa and Mexico or even Afghanistan that.

The vast majority of people in every country on the planet don't want war.

True, and yet it still happens always

So, who is pushing it? Hint: the warmongers are not ever going to appear on the battlefield.

That is why they have soldiers, been like that since man has been walking the earth.

They are in safe, air-conditioned offices.

Absolutely, they worked their way towards leadership or you think that should beefy solely to a soldier?

The trick they use is "we need defence against them guys over there," and "them guys over there" are told that they need defence against us.

Depends

And the excuse is "them guys over there are not the same as us, not really human, so it's OK to kill them!"

What? Huh?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

zibala

The United States spends $1 trillion annually on its defense budget, which is a staggering amount of taxpayer money. The country has 11 carriers, each with its own carrier force.

> The US provides security for numerous other countries--this is a staggering concept.

> For example, the US provides military protection for the UK, and has several military bases on UK soil!!!

Host countries that have US military bases pay to house them. The US no longer has any bases in the UK but is allowed to lease RAF bases.

https://cnduk.org/resources/military-bases-us-bases-in-the-uk-and-uk-bases-overseas-what-they-are-and-what-they-do/

The bases in the UK are there to serve the needs of the US and not the UK.

The US has about 800 bases overseas which cost only $25 billion. A small amount when compared to its defense budget. If those bases were closed the US would not save the $25 billion.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Now THAT would be a much more peaceful world.

If those bases were closed

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The US military budget is spent domestically and does not provide significant financial benefits to other countries.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

In a perfect world, that 2.4 Trillion dollars could feed all the starving, house all the homeless and educate every boy and girl on the planet. Not to mention build infrastructure to do away with global warming gas and oil use.

But the world is far from perfect, which in a way is strange. No matter where you go people, the basic citizens, all want very similar things. To enjoy peace and raise their families to be educated, healthy and free to choose their own path in life and live where they want to live in the secure knowledge that they will be treated fairly and equally to those around them, no matter the race, creed, religion or personal choices.

Yes cultures are different, but what one family does in their home does not effect or restrict what another family down the road does in theirs. Accepting different cultures should not be so difficult, and if it was taught in schools from the first day until the last, then people would make sure 2.4 trillion dollars would not be needed on military spending, ever.

Leader are meant to lead the way to a better future than those in the past had. In today's world they are failing. No matter if its China or America, Russia or Japan the leaders are all failing the people they lead and supposedly protect. Wielding power to make a name for themselves. To rule for political party over the population of their nations.

The longer people act like sheep, the longer this will continue. In the day of instant global communications, it is the people who can organize and force their governments to change through peaceful popular movements in great numbers. Failure and apathy will lead all on this road to ruin that we currently trundle down blind to all but our own singular daily lives.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Invasion of sovereign nation isn't self-defence or 'national security'. It's imperialism.

Was Iraq self defence or national security? Still figuring that one out.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Ukraine's military spending rose by 51 percent, reaching $64.8 billion, but the country also received $35 billion in military aid, of which the majority came from the U.S., meaning the combined aid and spending equalled over nine tenths of Russia's spending

Offense should be a lot more resource intensive than defense comparative expenditures should have led to a radically different outcomes than what's happening

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The only arms build-up that didn't result in major war was the outcome of the mutually-assured destruction of a cold-war bipolar world, though there were of course endless proxy wars. I don't think we can pull back from war and ruin. Hell, there are too many gung-ho militarists, anti-civilisationists, neo-barbarian survivalists, nihilists and believers in heavens who would even welcome it now.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

zibala

 For example, the US provides military protection for the UK, and has several military bases on UK soil!!!

There are 10,000 American troops in the UK mostly non combantants.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Japan and India are the two big laggards in defense spending, driven by a common desire to follow pacifism rooted in Indian ideology. Halariously the people who benefit the most from the pacifism are the most hateful of Indians.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Wars are Good for the Economy.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The bases in the UK are there to serve the needs of the US and not the UK.

Wrong, and UK' s parliament says the UK benefits from its access to US military thinking, equipment, and research.

A former prime minister called the US alliance the UK's "greatest gift".

And of course there's NATO, which further serves to protect the UK.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

There is no conflict that cannot be solved with diplomacy and negotiation. 

Diplomacy and negotiation worked so well with Hitler…

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The only ones who benefit from this military spending are the weapons manufacturers

Im sure the Ukrainian people are so happy they decided not to spend more on their military over the past decade, right?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

zibala

The bases in the UK are there to serve the needs of the US and not the UK.

> Wrong, and UK' s parliament says the UK benefits from its access to US military thinking, equipment, and research.

> A former prime minister called the US alliance the UK's "greatest gift".

> And of course there's NATO, which further serves to protect the UK.

Your cult master Trump threatens to end the US membership of NATO.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Your cult master Trump threatens to end the US membership of NATO.

He should, so that extreme lefty socialists step up to the plate to contribute to defending their own countries.

There are more active duty USAF personnel in Britain than 40 of the US's own states!

The US military deployment in Britain is the third largest in the world!

That's a lot of US military and money flowing into Britain.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The US military budget is spent domestically and does not provide significant financial benefits to other countries.

This is not true. The U.S. navy is basically the sole guarantor of free naval passages across the globe.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

There are 10,000 American troops in the UK mostly non combantants.

That's why the USAF's only F-15 fighter wing in Europe is based in the UK?

And the F-35 (look it up) fighter jet flies out of there too.

Those jets deliver the mail?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

zibala

Your cult master Trump threatens to end the US membership of NATO.

> He should, so that extreme lefty socialists step up to the plate to contribute to defending their own countries.

So the US isn't protecting the UK?

There are more active duty USAF personnel in Britain than 40 of the US's own states!

28 states.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/232722/geographic-stationing-of-active-duty-us-defense-force-personnel-by-state/

There are 10,000 American troops. None are in the army. Most are noncombatants involving spying and filling aircraft,

The US military deployment in Britain is the third largest in the world!

The 5th largest troops numbers.

That's a lot of US military and money flowing into Britain.

Very little US military money flows into the UK.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So the US isn't protecting the UK?

Don't worry--we will take care of you,

28 states.

40

There are 10,000 American troops. None are in the army. Most are noncombatants involving spying and filling aircraft,

None are in the army---do you know what USAF stands for?

Also, neither of us would know the actual number of US military on tdy at any time.

Very little US military money flows into the UK.

Billions do.

An F-35 costs over $100 million each.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Air Force activates first F-35A squadron in Europe

The Air Force estimates the squadron will include around 60 personnel and 27 aircraft. The first F-35A is scheduled to arrive at RAF Lakenheath later this year. The squadron was previously deactivated in 1991.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/2021/10/05/air-force-activates-first-f-35a-squadron-in-europe/

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The Air Force estimates the squadron will include around 60 personnel and 27 aircraft. The first F-35A is scheduled to arrive at RAF Lakenheath later this year. 

There's 3 billion USD.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

zibala

The Air Force estimates the squadron will include around 60 personnel and 27 aircraft. The first F-35A is scheduled to arrive at RAF Lakenheath later this year. 

There's 3 billion USD.

The UK does not get one cent from that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The UK does not get one cent from that.

You get 3 billion times 100 cents that you don't have to spend for that protection.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

F-35 planes are owned by the US which has 100% control over them and decides when and how they are used.

The UK has its fleet of F-35 planes.

"The arrival of more F-35B jets this weekend means the UK now has 34 of the stealth jets. With one aircraft lost in an accident and four test jets in the US, there are now 30 of the type in operational service in the UK. There is an expectation that all of the 47 in the first batch will be delivered by the end of 2025. Mar 17, 2024"

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-takes-delivery-of-more-new-f-35-stealth-jets/#:~:text=The%20arrival%20of%20more%20F,by%20the%20end%20of%202025.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Ramsey's Kitchen

Invasion of sovereign nation isn't self-defence or 'national security'. It's imperialism.

Was Iraq self defence or national security? Still figuring that one out.

The invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked act of imperialism by the US. You won't find many supporters of that action here, even from the right-leaning posters, even though it was a Republican president who ordered it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Focus on raising consciousness would certainly help.

Obviously using conflict to solve problems isn't the intelligent way to move forward.

All these lame excuse comments of why it's necessary is cognitive nonsense

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The only ones who benefit from this military spending are the weapons manufacturers, oh, and the politicians who get back handers. I bet they are all clapping each other with joy right now.

Also those of us who like living in liberal democracies who don't want to be enslaved by autocrats.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Now THAT would be a much more peaceful world.

Deannza - If larger counties like Russia and China cease from their invasion and provocations and become democracies, then I will be the first the suggest pulling our bases back. Are Russia and China pulling their bases back in your peaceful world?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Global military spending pushes conflicts to all time high.

There, fixed it for you.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The US sends arms to countries which use them to murder civilians in the name of Pax Americana.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So elections do have consequences? shocked

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wars have always been a huge economic boost for the RS of the USA. That's how come they start so many.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

AndyToday 11:13 am JST

Wars have always been a huge economic boost for the RS of the USA. That's how come they start so many.

3% of GDP. Nobody cares that much about 3%.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The US clearly needs to spend more considering it needs to now fight third party conflicts without air power in countries of Russian choosing.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

F-35 planes are owned by the US which has 100% control over them and decides when and how they are used.

The UK has its fleet of F-35 planes.

Add to that the over 20 F-35 fighter jets the USAF has on UK bases, saving the UK more than 3 billion US$.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

zibala

F-35 planes are owned by the US which has 100% control over them and decides when and how they are used.

> The UK has its fleet of F-35 planes.

> Add to that the over 20 F-35 fighter jets the USAF has on UK bases, saving the UK more than 3 billion US$.

The US F-35 planes stationed in the UK are not there solely to protect the UK. Rather, they serve as a forward NATO base for the US, primarily to safeguard American troops based in Germany and Italy. Additionally, these planes can be deployed for missions in other regions, such as the Middle East.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

When Russian fighter jets approach the UK coast, UK F-35 planes are scrambled to intercept them, while the US F-35 planes remain grounded.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites