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.
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.
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
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.