Murphy's Law: Western Europe Sets An Example


October 30,2008: World military spending continues to climb, and is now a bit more than $1.3 trillion a year. That's a ten percent increase from last year, and some 2.5 percent of world GDP. The United States was responsible for about 40 percent of that spending. This is still less than the peak Cold War numbers, which were reached in the late 1980s, when spending (adjusted for inflation), went past $1.6 trillion a year. After the Cold War ended in 1991, worldwide spending fell by nearly half, to about $900 billion a year. Since then, especially since the war on terror and growing aggressiveness by Iran, the spending has been rising. It was just over a trillion dollars in 2005.

In the last ten years, there have been major differences in spending by region. In Eastern Europe (mainly Russia) spending went up 162 percent. The second largest regional increase was North America (mainly the United States) at 65 percent. In sharp contrast, Western European spending only went up six percent, and in Latin America 14 percent. Both these regions have traditionally depended on the United States to defend them. That tradition, rarely discussed among the beneficiaries, continues. However, the Europeans have become so militarily weak that they have a hard time supporting peacekeeping operations. France and Britain are urging Western Europeans to got their military affairs in order. Meanwhile, the rest of the world military spending grew by about 55 percent.

Russia appears to be intent on starting a new arms race. The Soviet Union, which started the last major arms race in the early 1960s, couldn't keep it up, and disintegrated, partly because of the attempt to, in 1991. But it's not the same as before. In fact, it's very different. Back during the Cold War era, there were over a hundred million people under arms, and each year, factories turned out thousands of tanks, hundreds of warplanes and dozens of warships. No more, not even close, even though current spending is about 75 percent of the Cold War peak. There are fewer than 40 million people under arms now, and tank production rarely exceeds a few hundred a year, with annual warplane production of less than a hundred a year, and only a handful of warships.

When the Cold War ended, so did the era of huge conscript armies, masses of tanks (the Soviet Union had over 50,000 when the end came) and comparatively large numbers of combat aircraft and warships. Suddenly, after 1991, everything got smaller, and more expensive. Conscripts were replaced by a lot fewer professionals, who got paid a lot more money. This was something the British pioneered in the 1960s, followed by the United States in the 1970s. When the Cold War ended, and everyone saw what pros could do in the 1991 Gulf War, everyone began to dismantle their conscript armies. Smaller armed forces, staffed by professionals and equipped with less, but more capable, gear, were the new norm. A lot of the growth in U.S. defense spending in the last few years, is to support operations in Iraq. This includes lots of money for bases in Iraq, and the hiring of over 100,000 civilians (including about 20,000 armed security contractors) to help with the war effort.

Thus the patterns of defense spending have changed. Much more of it now goes for payroll, and for buying far fewer, but higher quality, weapons. More money goes into equipment, high tech stuff like satellite based communications and computers. Billions of dollars a year is spent on satellite communications alone, and not just by the United States.

With the Soviet Union gone, no one else out there wants to try and match the United States spending levels. The war on terror also has American spending going up again. While nearly half the spending is by the United States, most of that money is not buying weapons, but payroll, benefits and materials needed for training and operations (food, fuel, spare parts, services.)

Not many new tanks, warplanes or combat ships are being built, as everyone continues to live off the Cold War surplus. Many countries want to build new stuff, but everything has gotten so much more expensive. That's because computers and powerful sensors and all manner of nifty technology provide most of the lethality in new weapons. For example, your basic $500 assault rifle becomes far more lethal when you add several thousand dollars worth computerized accessories.

 Countries are spending more on defense, but they aren't buying the same kind of stuff they were two decades ago.


Article Archive

Murphy's Law: Current 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 



Help Keep Us Soaring

We need your help! Our subscription base has slowly been dwindling. We need your help in reversing that trend. We would like to add 20 new subscribers this month.

Each month we count on your subscriptions or contributions. You can support us in the following ways:

  1. Make sure you spread the word about us. Two ways to do that are to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  2. Subscribe to our daily newsletter. We’ll send the news to your email box, and you don’t have to come to the site unless you want to read columns or see photos.
  3. You can contribute to the health of StrategyPage. A contribution is not a donation that you can deduct at tax time, but a form of crowdfunding. We store none of your information when you contribute..
Subscribe   Contribute   Close