World Military Spending

Global military expenditure and arms trade form the largest spending in the world at over one trillion dollars in annual expenditure and has been rising in recent years.

(1991 figures are unavailable.)

Summarizing some key details from chapter 8 of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)’s 2007 Year Book on Armaments, Disarmament and International Security for 2005:

• World military expenditure in 2006 is estimated to have reached $1204 billion in current dollars;
• This represents a 3.5 per cent increase in real terms since 2005 and a 37 per cent increase over the 10-year period since 1997;
• The USA, responsible for about 80 per cent of the increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for almost half of the world total;

SIPRI also comments on the increasing concentration of military expenditure, i.e. that a small number of countries spend the largest sums:

• The 15 countries with the highest spending account for 83 per cent of the total;
• The USA is responsible for 46 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4-5 per cent each.

Using SIPRI data:

High and rising world market prices of minerals and fossil fuels has also been a contributing factor in the upward trend in military expenditure, said SIPRI in their earlier 2006 report. For example, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Russia and Saudi Arabia have been able to increase spending because of increased oil and gas revenues, while Chile and Peru’s increases are resource-driven, “because their military spending is linked by law to profits from the exploitation of key natural resources.”

Also, “China and India, the world’s two emerging economic powers, are demonstrating a sustained increase in their military expenditure and contribute to the growth in world military spending. In absolute terms their current spending is only a fraction of the USA’s. Their increases are largely commensurate with their economic growth.”

SIPRI’s 2005 data also shows that while in raw dollar amounts some nations are increasing spending at large amounts, their percentage increases may vary:

In a similar report from 2004, the authors also noted that, “There is a large gap between what countries are prepared to allocate for military means to provide security and maintain their global and regional power status, on the one hand, and to alleviate poverty and promote economic development, on the other.”

Indeed, compare the military spending with the entire budget of the United Nations:

The UN was created after World War II with leading efforts by the United States and key allies.

• The UN was set up to be committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security.
• Yet, the UN’s entire budget is just a tiny fraction of the world’s military expenditure, approximately 2%
• While the UN is not perfect and has many internal issues that need addressing, it is revealing that the world can spend so much on their military but contribute so little to the goals of global security, international cooperation and peace.

• For more info about the United Nations

  • This web site’s section on the United Nations and Development looks at its role in fighting poverty and other issues, plus some of the problems it faces.
  • The United Nations web site

At the current level of spending (for 2006), it would take just a handful of years for the world’s donor countries to cover their entire aid shortfall, of some 2 trillion dollars in promised official aid since 1970, more than 35 years ago.

Generally, US military spending has been on the rise. Recent increases are attributed to the so-called War on Terror and the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, but it had also been rising before that.

For example, Christopher Hellman, an expert on military budget analysis notes in The Runaway Military Budget: An Analysis , (Friends Committee on National Legislation, March 2006, no. 705, p. 3) that military spending had been rising since at least 1998, if not earlier.

Another expert on this topic, Travis Sharp, provides spending figures from 2001 to the requested figures for 2009 shown here:

When the US Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for military spending came out in early 2008, Travis Sharp and Christopher Hellman (mentioned earlier) projected the spending of other nations planned for 2008 thus allowing comparison between US military spending and the rest of the world:

• Pie chart
• Comparing US with others
• Top spenders ranked (and sources)

Pie chart

Comparing US with others

In other words,

• US military spending accounts for 48 percent, or almost half, of the world’s total military spending
• US military spending is more than the next 46 highest spending countries in the world combined
• US military spending is 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.
• US military spending is almost 55 times the spending on the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) whose spending amounts to around $13 billion, maximum. (Tabulated data does not include four of the six, as the data only lists nations that have spent over 1 billion in the year, so their budget is assumed to be $1 billion each)
• US spending is more than the combined spending of the next 45 countries.
• The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined, representing 72 percent of the world’s total.
• The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together account for about $205 billion or 29% of the US military budget.

Top spenders ranked (and sources)

Military spending in 2008 ($ Billions, and percent of total)

Country	Dollars (billions)	% of total	Rank
Source: U.S. Military Spending vs. the World, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February 22, 2008 Notes: The figure for the United States is the budget request for Fiscal Year 2009 and includes $170 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as funding for the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons activities. All other figures are projections based on 2006, the last year for which accurate data is available. All countries that spent over one billion per year are listed. Due to rounding, some percentages may be slightly off. If you are viewing this table on another site, please see http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending for further details.
United States	711	48.28%	1
China	121.9	8.28%	2
Russia	70	4.75%	3
United Kingdom	55.4	3.76%	4
France	54	3.67%	5
Japan	41.1	2.79%	6
Germany	37.8	2.57%	7
Italy	30.6	2.08%	8
Saudi Arabia	29.5	2.00%	9
South Korea	24.6	1.67%	10
India	22.4	1.52%	11
Australia	17.2	1.17%	12
Brazil	16.2	1.10%	13
Canada	15	1.02%	14
Spain	14.4	0.98%	15
Turkey	11.6	0.79%	16
Israel	11	0.75%	17
Netherlands	9.9	0.67%	18
United Arab Emirates	9.5	0.65%	19
Taiwan	7.7	0.52%	20
Greece	7.3	0.50%	21
Iran	7.2	0.49%	22
Myanmar	6.9	0.47%	23
Singapore	6.3	0.43%	24
Poland	6.2	0.42%	25
Sweden	5.8	0.39%	26
Colombia	5.4	0.37%	27
Chile	4.7	0.32%	28
Belgium	4.4	0.30%	29
Egypt	4.3	0.29%	30
Pakistan	4.2	0.29%	31
Denmark	3.9	0.26%	32
Indonesia	3.6	0.24%	33
Switzerland	3.5	0.24%	34
Kuwait	3.5	0.24%	35
South Africa	3.5	0.24%	36
Oman	3.3	0.22%	37
Malaysia	3.2	0.22%	38
Mexico	3.2	0.22%	39
Portugal	3.1	0.21%	40
Algeria	3.1	0.21%	41
Finland	2.8	0.19%	42
Austria	2.6	0.18%	43
Venezuela	2.6	0.18%	44
Czech Republic	2.5	0.17%	45
Romania	2.3	0.16%	46
Qatar	2.3	0.16%	47
Thailand	2.3	0.16%	48
Morocco	2.2	0.15%	49
Argentina	1.9	0.13%	50
Ukraine	1.7	0.12%	51
Cuba	1.7	0.12%	52
Angola	1.6	0.11%	53
New Zealand	1.5	0.10%	54
Hungary	1.3	0.09%	55
Ireland	1.1	0.07%	56
Jordan	1.1	0.07%	57
Peru	1.1	0.07%	58
North Korea	n/a	n/a	59
Global Total (not all countries shown): 1,472.7		100%	n/a

Why does the US number seem so high when the budget announced $517.9 for the Department of Defense?

Unfortunately, the budget numbers can be a bit confusing. For example, the Fiscal Year budget requests for US military spending do not include combat figures (which are supplemental requests that Congress approves separately). The budget for nuclear weapons falls under the Department of Energy, and for the 2009 request, was about $29 billion.

The cost of war (Iraq and Afghanistan) is estimated to be about $170 billion for the 2009 spending alone. Christopher Hellman and Travis Sharp also discuss the US fiscal year 2009 Pentagon spending request and note that “Congress has already approved nearly $700 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $126 billion in FY'08 war funding is still pending before the House and Senate.”

Furthermore, other costs such as care for vetarans, healthcare, military training/aid, secret operations, may fall under other departments or be counted separately.

The frustration of confusing numbers seemed to hit a raw nerve for the Center for Defense Information, concluding

Commenting on the earlier data, Chris Hellman, noted that when adjusted for inflation the request for 2007 together with that needed for nuclear weapons the 2007 spending request exceeds the average amount spent by the Pentagon during the Cold War, for a military that is one-third smaller than it was just over a decade ago.

Supporters of America’s high military expenditure often argue that using raw dollars is not a fair measure, but that instead it should be per capita or as percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and even then the spending numbers miss out the fact that US provides global stability with its high spending and allows other nations to avoid such high spending. However, as researcher Chris Hellman notes,

In regards to the high spending allowing other nations to spend less, that is often part of a supportive theory of the global hegemon being good for the world. Granted, other nations in such a position would likely want to be able to dominate as much of the world as possible, as past empires have throughout history.

However, whether this global hegemony and stability actually means positive stability, peace and prosperity for the entire world (or most of it) is subjective. That is, certainly the hegemony at the time, and its allies would benefit from the stability, relative peace and prosperity for themselves, but often ignored in this is whether the policies pursued for their advantages breeds contempt elsewhere (in the modern era that may equate to “anti-Americanism”, resorting to terrorism and other forms of hatred.)

As noted in other parts of this site, unfortunately more powerful countries have also pursued policies that have contributed to more poverty, and at times even overthrown fledgling democracies in favor of dictatorships or more malleable democracies. (Osama Bin Laden, for example, was part of an enormous Islamic militancy encouraged and trained by the US to help fight the Soviet Union. Of course, these extremists are all too happy to take credit for fighting off the Soviets in Afghanistan, never acknowledging how it could not have been done without their so-called “great satan” friend-turned-enemy!)

So the global good hegemon theory may help justify high spending and even stability for a number of other countries, but it does not necessarily apply to the whole world. To be fair, this criticism can also be a bit simplistic especially if an empire finds itself against a competitor with similar ambitions, that risks polarizing the world, and answers are likely difficult to find.

But even for the large US economy, the high military spending may not be sustainable in the long term. Noting trends in military spending, SIPRI added that the massive increase in US military spending has been one of the factors contributing to the deterioration of the US economy since 2001. SIPRI continues that, “In addition to its direct impact of high military expenditure, there are also indirect and more long-term effects. According to one study taking these factors into account, the overall past and future costs until year 2016 to the USA for the war in Iraq have been estimated to $2267 billion.”

The peace lobby, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, calculates for Fiscal Year 2007 that the majority of US tax payer’s money goes towards war:

For those hoping the world can decrease its military spending, SIPRI warns that “while the invasion [of Iraq] may have served as warning to other states with weapons of mass destruction, it could have the reverse effect in that some states may see an increase in arsenals as the only way to prevent a forced regime change.”