How much military spending?

[Blind groper]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... penditures

I was stimulated to look at a little British history, by my thread on the 30 years war. That war was the nastiest (in terms of lives lost in Europe as a percentage of the total population) ever fought in Europe. I was interested to note the reason Britain was not involved, and escaped the terrible harm that war caused. In fact, it is quite possible that Britain's subsequent 'greatness' as a world power stemmed from avoiding the harm of that war.

The reason was simple. King Charles I had to get money from parliament, and parliament was not happy with King Charles due to his Catholic sympathies. So parliament refused to raise taxes and fund offshore military adventures.

The thought struck me that this principle could be applicable in the 21st Century also. If a nation has its military budget drastically reduced, it will not be involved in terribly harmful foreign wars. Not only that, but the money wasted on the military could then be used for more constructive purposes.

Here are the top military spenders, in 2013.

1. USA - 640 billion
2. China - 188 billion
3. Russia - 88 billion
4. Saudi Arabia - 67 billion
5. France - 61 billion
6. UK - 58 billion.

Total for the whole world - 1,747 billion

Would it not be a wonderful thing if each of the nations above could drastically cut their military spending, and thus free up funds to actually help people, and avoid unnecessary conflicts?

[klr]

Some quick counter-observations:

Some of the worst conflicts in history (in terms of body counts and general misery) have not involved seriously expensive military hardware or infrastructure.

Neither China nor Saudi Arabia is currently involved in external conflicts, that I am aware of.

The rise of the British Empire was in no small part due to wars - wars of conquest, and conflicts with other colonial powers, notably France.

[Blind groper]

I suspect that the rise of the British Empire was more held back by those military conflicts. The Napoleonic Wars for example, were devastating to British development. Small wars have small budgets, and do far less harm. But the 30 years war was the worst in Europe in terms of lives lost, and Britain managed to escape involvement due to its budget being tightened.

[JimC]

Some quick counter-observations:

Some of the worst conflicts in history (in terms of body counts and general misery) have not involved seriously expensive military hardware or infrastructure.

Neither China nor Saudi Arabia is currently involved in external conflicts, that I am aware of.

The rise of the British Empire was in no small part due to wars - wars of conquest, and conflicts with other colonial powers, notably France.

I suspect that the rise of the British Empire was more held back by those military conflicts. The Napoleonic Wars for example, were devastating to British development. Small wars have small budgets, and do far less harm. But the 30 years war was the worst in Europe in terms of lives lost, and Britain managed to escape involvement due to its budget being tightened.

I agree with klr here. Naval warfare against the Spanish and French was both a stimulus to at least some forms of technology, and most importantly, provided the force needed to gain and maintain an overseas empire.

[laklak]

Of course it's stimulus money. DARPA comes up with all kinds of neat shit. NASA was a product of the cold war. Cryptography, physics, chemistry, engineering, avionics, shit, damn near every STEM field benefits hugely from a big military budget. Not to mention employing a shitload of people directly. Factor in all those taxi drivers, hookers, bartenders, Waffle Houses, and pawn shops around any base town and you'd have to be stupid as hell to cut the budget. Fuck it, spend more. I'd rather have 10,000 military just down the road than 10,000 gangbangers.

[JimC]

The important thing is for Australia to at least maintain our military spending. We know that, under a facade of pacifism, those arseholes in New Zealand are secretly planning to invade, spreading rape and mayhem across the land. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if BG was in reality a secret kiwi agent, tirelessly working to maintain a false image of pacifism...

[pErvinalia]

[Blind groper]

Curses, Jim. You saw through my plot!

However, let me offer an alternative. Instead of military spending, with the tremendous costs in human lives and reduction in standard of living due to that much less money being available, how about diverting a big chunk of that money to research?

Imagine what Britain would have achieved if, instead of entering all those wars, it spent its surplus cash on scientific R and D. The Brits would probably rule the world by now!

[JimC]

Curses, Jim. You saw through my plot!

However, let me offer an alternative. Instead of military spending, with the tremendous costs in human lives and reduction in standard of living due to that much less money being available, how about diverting a big chunk of that money to research?

Imagine what Britain would have achieved if, instead of entering all those wars, it spent its surplus cash on scientific R and D. The Brits would probably rule the world by now!

No, they'd be speaking French or German...

[cronus]

Every society breeds men of violence and in hard times the very system does it. Whilst it appears a waste of precious bottletops I think you'll find those societies without a organised violence arena don't lose violence, they lower costs by privatising it....from my perspective, as a nihilist, it is not a moral issue. It isn't even a expenses one. It is how to best utilise any machinery for violence at your disposal to best secure your worldly prosperity as a society, as a individual. America can see social fragmentation following a currency collapse on its horizon, so the guns are turned inwards for now. A rational strategy.

[piscator]

Curses, Jim. You saw through my plot!

However, let me offer an alternative. Instead of military spending, with the tremendous costs in human lives and reduction in standard of living due to that much less money being available, how about diverting a big chunk of that money to research?

Imagine what Britain would have achieved if, instead of entering all those wars, it spent its surplus cash on scientific R and D. The Brits would probably rule the world by now!

No, they'd be speaking French or German...

Yep. Sounds like someone should have done a little more research before he developed that post.

[Hermit]

Has any nation become a world power without the use of military force?

[pErvinalia]

I think the Smurfs did..

[klr]

Has any nation become a world power without the use of military force?

This meets the dictionary definition of a rhetorical question.

And I suspect the answer is a flat "no", if I may be allowed to neatly condense all of human history thus.

[Blind groper]

The period Britain began to become 'great' was a period in which minimal war was fought by the Brits. The kick off to Britain's industrial revolution (and it did start in Britain) was James Watt who designed the world's first truly practical steam engine. He got his start by 'prenticing to Dr. Black who researched the basic laws of heat and heat transfer, and the physics of water turning to steam. Neither had anything to with war, and their development work was entirely civilian.

I suspect that the idea that war stimulates scientific growth is rather exaggerated. After all, the Dark Ages were characterised by almost continuous war, and nothin' happened in terms of science and technology.

The period of history in which science and technology grew at its greatest rate is the last 70 odd years, which is also known as the Long Peace, in which wars continued, but they were mostly small wars, and most of humanity was unaffected by them.