If we use active personnel per capita, the US ranks slightly higher at 53 with 4.6. Canada would come in right below at 54 with 4.5.
We made top ten?
I'm not sure how i feel about this acchievement.
...
...
yay?
You're at #64 when counting just active personnel. I assume this is the result of some policy in which all Finns are all considered reserve personnel, which may or may not be actually reflected in factual military capability.
If we use active personnel per capita, the US ranks slightly higher at 53 with 4.6. Canada would come in right below at 54 with 4.5.
We made top ten?
I'm not sure how i feel about this acchievement.
...
...
yay?
Canada made top 62
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Is that saying that roughly 3 in 10 people in North Korea are soldiers?
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Is that saying that roughly 3 in 10 people in North Korea are soldiers?
It's saying 3/10 are in some way related, be it active duty, reserve, or paramilitary (which wikipedia is defining "armed units that are not considered part of a nation's formal military forces"). Think police, militia, etc.
So I'm seeing Trump intends to sign an EO to create a comprehensive study of US trade deals.
That seems like an incredibly low bar to clear.
Poor kushner, must suck to have his homework assigned via executive order.
"They hurt America." A++ would make Great Again.
This is a terrible idea, that idiots would do unless they want to do a U-turn and campaign on facts. They did the same thing before calling the Brexit Referendum (bit earlier than that really, think it was before Cameron did his big campaign to renegotiate our relationship with Europe before asking Facists to run a campaign against him). Can tell you now, turns out you do quite well from them, everyone does nicely from specialising in slightly different things but does this across borders when you start to consider final products rather than individual components.
Yet as further analysis by the press will show, they do nothing to stop dirty foreigners touching things under a variety of visas, even tourists who have a visa waiver and use mastercard. They still touch things with their filthy foreign hands, rendering the whole system moot. What point is a trade deal if it doesn't stop immigration?
comparing spending in "peace time" (or whatever the US's low-grade perpetual war is) to a period of total war is not particularly useful as a measure of militarization
That statement does not make any sense.
Yes it does. Military force is not a flow, it's a stock. When you're not actively using your stock up then you need less spending.
There are also absolute size advantages (as you spend less money on labor proportionally)
I think we're running into a definitional problem then.
I'll start with my understanding
To me: militarization as a measurement is the degree to which all levels of society have been organized around the military. By that definition, GDP spending on the military is a useful proxy of the degree of militarization experienced by that society. By this definition, spending in peace-time is directly comparable to spending in war-time, because both represent the degree to which the society has been organized around the military. During WW2, the military drove all aspects of the society. Heavily militarized. Right now, the military is a large but still minor component of society. Not very heavily militarized. But in absolute capability the US military dominates every other country's forces despite spending a fraction of the GDP on it, hence hegemony on a budget.
What is your definition?
Same definition. Just with the realization that maintenance requires less spending than mobilization just as there is a difference between capital and income.
E.G. Suppose we spend 90% GPD on military for 5 years and then spend 1% for five years after that. The 1% was labor the whole time, and the rest was building equipment. At the end of 10 years we aren't "low military" because we have accumulated military equipment.
The US is pretty much there already. We have massive stockpiles which we simply update and maintain.
+1
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
comparing spending in "peace time" (or whatever the US's low-grade perpetual war is) to a period of total war is not particularly useful as a measure of militarization
That statement does not make any sense.
Yes it does. Military force is not a flow, it's a stock. When you're not actively using your stock up then you need less spending.
There are also absolute size advantages (as you spend less money on labor proportionally)
I think we're running into a definitional problem then.
I'll start with my understanding
To me: militarization as a measurement is the degree to which all levels of society have been organized around the military. By that definition, GDP spending on the military is a useful proxy of the degree of militarization experienced by that society. By this definition, spending in peace-time is directly comparable to spending in war-time, because both represent the degree to which the society has been organized around the military. During WW2, the military drove all aspects of the society. Heavily militarized. Right now, the military is a large but still minor component of society. Not very heavily militarized. But in absolute capability the US military dominates every other country's forces despite spending a fraction of the GDP on it, hence hegemony on a budget.
What is your definition?
Same definition. Just with the realization that maintenance requires less spending than mobilization just as there is a difference between capital and income.
E.G. Suppose we spend 90% GPD on military for 5 years and then spend 1% for five years after that. The 1% was labor the whole time, and the rest was building equipment. At the end of 10 years we aren't "low military" because we have accumulated military equipment.
The US is pretty much there already. We have massive stockpiles which we simply update and maintain.
I'm now convinced we are talking about related but different things. You're talking about militarization in the sense of "to equip with armed forces, military supplies, or the like". I'm talking about militarization in the sense of "to make military"; "to imbue with militarism".
In the sense you're talking about, assuming constant force levels, rates of expenditure are everything. In the sense I'm talking about, they're but one facet of the puzzle. So measures of GDP, % of people under arms, etc. are measures of the degree in which the society has been "made military" and "imbued with militarism."
Hopefully we can now stop talking past each other.
If we use active personnel per capita, the US ranks slightly higher at 53 with 4.6. Canada would come in right below at 54 with 4.5.
We made top ten?
I'm not sure how i feel about this acchievement.
...
...
yay?
You're at #64 when counting just active personnel. I assume this is the result of some policy in which all Finns are all considered reserve personnel, which may or may not be actually reflected in factual military capability.
If we use active personnel per capita, the US ranks slightly higher at 53 with 4.6. Canada would come in right below at 54 with 4.5.
We made top ten?
I'm not sure how i feel about this acchievement.
...
...
yay?
You're at #64 when counting just active personnel. I assume this is the result of some policy in which all Finns are all considered reserve personnel, which may or may not be actually reflected in factual military capability.
To be fair
every finn carries a knife.
They'd have to for that raft trip with their friend Jim. There be pirates on that river!
A vast military isn't necessarily a militarized nation. North Korea is a militarized nation because of how many people serve in their military as a percentage of the population. The US's pop/military ratio is trivial
Here's a quick sense-check to see if you live in a highly militarised nation:
Does your government spend as much on its military as the next highest 8 or 9 nations combined?
NO [ ]
YES[ ]
If you checked YES then you might live in a highly militarised nation
What if your country is also larger than the next 8 or 9 nations combined?
TBH I had no idea we spent that little (as a percentage of GDP) on the military and I'm a little taken aback.
I'd have to check the original numbers, but a lot of our military budget isn't accounted for in our actual budgets and therefore a lot of /GDP calculations.
Still smaller than you might think in comparison to things like SSI and Medicare/Medicaid (population size will do that), but also more than often shows up on paper.
This is all probably pretty far removed from Trump foreign policy except in the sense that he also has no answers to these questions.
Here's a quick sense-check to see if you live in a highly militarised nation:
Does your government spend as much on its military as the next highest 8 or 9 nations combined?
NO [ ]
YES[ ]
If you checked YES then you might live in a highly militarised nation
What if your country is also larger than the next 8 or 9 nations combined?
TBH I had no idea we spent that little (as a percentage of GDP) on the military and I'm a little taken aback.
I'd have to check the original numbers, but a lot of our military budget isn't accounted for in our actual budgets and therefore a lot of /GDP calculations.
Still smaller than you might think in comparison to things like SSI and Medicare/Medicaid (population size will do that), but also more than often shows up on paper.
This is all probably pretty far removed from Trump foreign policy except in the sense that he also has no answers to these questions.
DoD is half of all discretionary spending. We spend more on overseas bases than we do on the State Department. Even when we actually staff the State Department.
It's also part of why demanding NATO up their military spending is idiotic. We could cut our defense budget in half and still be dominant militarily thanks to those alliances. Or we could piss off joint defense allies like South Korea just to see what happens.
Is that saying that roughly 3 in 10 people in North Korea are soldiers?
It's saying 3/10 are in some way related, be it active duty, reserve, or paramilitary (which wikipedia is defining "armed units that are not considered part of a nation's formal military forces"). Think police, militia, etc.
What if your country is also larger than the next 8 or 9 nations combined?
TBH I had no idea we spent that little (as a percentage of GDP) on the military and I'm a little taken aback.
We have Obama and the sequester to thank for that. Our military spending has been flat(ish) since Obama took over. But much of the effect is in the fluctuation of GDP and not necessarily in massive changes in defense spending.
If we use active personnel per capita, the US ranks slightly higher at 53 with 4.6. Canada would come in right below at 54 with 4.5.
We made top ten?
I'm not sure how i feel about this acchievement.
...
...
yay?
You're at #64 when counting just active personnel. I assume this is the result of some policy in which all Finns are all considered reserve personnel, which may or may not be actually reflected in factual military capability.
It's likely the same reason why SK is #2, compulsory military service
Also, that number for Canada is hilariously wrong. According to the Canadian Forces itself it has somewhere between 80 and 90000 total, including reserves
Trump, who congratulated Erdogan on vote that was criticized as increasing his authoritarian power, invited Duterte to the White House
From the White House press conference: "They also discussed the fact that the Philippine government is fighting very hard to rid its country of drugs, a scourge that affects many countries throughout the world."
Duterte has bragged about personally killing suspects without a trial. Trump probably thinks that is awesome.
If we use active personnel per capita, the US ranks slightly higher at 53 with 4.6. Canada would come in right below at 54 with 4.5.
We made top ten?
I'm not sure how i feel about this acchievement.
...
...
yay?
You're at #64 when counting just active personnel. I assume this is the result of some policy in which all Finns are all considered reserve personnel, which may or may not be actually reflected in factual military capability.
It's likely the same reason why SK is #2, compulsory military service
Also, that number for Canada is hilariously wrong. According to the Canadian Forces itself it has somewhere between 80 and 90000 total, including reserves
On the flipside of wrongness, Singapore - 400k is just the reservists active at any one time, due to the 10year call up cycle. The mandatory service and lower levels of call-up means they actually have a total pool of around 1.4million reservists to draw on if necessary.
Trump, who congratulated Erdogan on vote that was criticized as increasing his authoritarian power, invited Duterte to the White House
From the White House press conference: "They also discussed the fact that the Philippine government is fighting very hard to rid its country of drugs, a scourge that affects many countries throughout the world."
Duterte has bragged about personally killing suspects without a trial. Trump probably thinks that is awesome.
Some of this stuff smells like it has Bannon's stink all over it. I have to wonder if he's wormed his way back into Trump's ear.
He's just a symptom of the disease, though. Trump loves authoritarians on his own--they're 'so strong', and many share his fashion sense.
Bannon shouldn't become seen as Trump's Cheney, the Dark Lord pulling the strings of an affable idiot (I know that's not what you were saying). That's the line Morning Joe interrupts Mika with whenever Trump does something he doesn't like. If Trump does something good (cruise missiles!), it's because he listened to Mattis or Tillerson, sometimes even Kushner. Something bad? Definitely Bannon or that silly intern Stephen Miller. Trump is reduced to bystander status, just a billionaire with a gift for connecting to the folks in the redneck riviera for some reason totally unrelated to peddling racist conspiracy theories.
Here's a quick sense-check to see if you live in a highly militarised nation:
Does your government spend as much on its military as the next highest 8 or 9 nations combined?
NO [ ]
YES[ ]
If you checked YES then you might live in a highly militarised nation
...
That's just good game theory in action though.
If America's going for the military victory, and is in the lead, then everyone who's not threatened by America is going to divert their resources into culture or science or something, whilst being buddy-buddy with America.
So more militarised, yes.
But the lack of competition also allows America to not invest as much as it might if it were at war.
[quoteSEOUL—White House national-security chief Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster told his South Korean counterpart that the U.S. would pay for a missile-defense system designed to protect against a North Korean missile attack, apparently reversing President Donald Trump’s remark on Thursday that South Korea should pay for the roughly $1 billion battery.
In a 35-minute phone call Sunday morning, Gen. McMaster told Kim Kwan-jin, South Korea’s national-security adviser, that the U.S. would finance Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad, as agreed to by the two countries last year, according to a statement from South Korea’s presidential Blue House.][/quote]
SEOUL—White House national-security chief Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster told his South Korean counterpart that the U.S. would pay for a missile-defense system designed to protect against a North Korean missile attack, apparently reversing President Donald Trump’s remark on Thursday that South Korea should pay for the roughly $1 billion battery.
In a 35-minute phone call Sunday morning, Gen. McMaster told Kim Kwan-jin, South Korea’s national-security adviser, that the U.S. would finance Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad, as agreed to by the two countries last year, according to a statement from South Korea’s presidential Blue House.
This will get really interesting depending on how Trump reacts and what can do about this if he wants to shut it down. If he does McMaster and SK better pray he doesn't hear about this until it's too late.
+3
Options
Mx. QuillI now prefer "Myr. Quill", actually...{They/Them}Registered Userregular
edited April 2017
How long til Trump complains about someone else being able to say/do something that goes against the desires of the Supreme God-Emperor President.
Well, in this particular case. Cause he certainly has whined about it countless times in the last 101 days.
India and China are both >3x the population of the US. The EU has a greater population than the US.
That's for population, not GDP, which is the relevant metric for size when comparing military expenditures as a percent of GDP.
This lumps the EU into one enormous block, but gives you some idea of the scales involved:
Looking at projected 2017 GDP in trillions of dollars, we get:
United States 19.4
China 11.8
Japan 4.8
Germany 3.4
So it takes three of the next largest world economies to equal the US economy in size. Something to remember as well is that because the US is a hegemon, it has heavily subsidized its allies defense needs, allowing them to reduce their own expenditures (Japan being a significant beneficiary here). This has led to the imbalance we see now.
+5
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
SEOUL—White House national-security chief Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster told his South Korean counterpart that the U.S. would pay for a missile-defense system designed to protect against a North Korean missile attack, apparently reversing President Donald Trump’s remark on Thursday that South Korea should pay for the roughly $1 billion battery.
In a 35-minute phone call Sunday morning, Gen. McMaster told Kim Kwan-jin, South Korea’s national-security adviser, that the U.S. would finance Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad, as agreed to by the two countries last year, according to a statement from South Korea’s presidential Blue House.
This will get really interesting depending on how Trump reacts and what can do about this if he wants to shut it down. If he does McMaster and SK better pray he doesn't hear about this until it's too late.
Considering how Trump has the attention span of a petulant child and can't read more than half a page at a time without getting bored, it's really easy to keep him from finding out about stuff. Trump hasn't said a thing about Venezuela nationalizing the GM plant probably because they put it on page two where he wouldn't get around to it. They can all pretend they did their due diligence by having it on record, but never got around to it because Trump started whining ten minutes in that this was hard and he wanted his phone.
McMaster and Mattis seem smart and competent enough to figure this out and work around Trump, behind his back, though it does scare me in the long run if/when the military starts operating as its own organization separate from the government.
India and China are both >3x the population of the US. The EU has a greater population than the US.
That's for population, not GDP, which is the relevant metric for size when comparing military expenditures as a percent of GDP.
This lumps the EU into one enormous block, but gives you some idea of the scales involved:
Looking at projected 2017 GDP in trillions of dollars, we get:
United States 19.4
China 11.8
Japan 4.8
Germany 3.4
So it takes three of the next largest world economies to equal the US economy in size. Something to remember as well is that because the US is a hegemon, it has heavily subsidized its allies defense needs, allowing them to reduce their own expenditures (Japan being a significant beneficiary here). This has led to the imbalance we see now.
Are we planning on going to war against our allies? Because we should really group together the entire NATO military spend. Plus ANZUS, Japan, Korea, and other bilateral security arrangements. At which point we're heading towards 99% of global defense spending.
Posts
You're at #64 when counting just active personnel. I assume this is the result of some policy in which all Finns are all considered reserve personnel, which may or may not be actually reflected in factual military capability.
Canada made top 62
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
It's saying 3/10 are in some way related, be it active duty, reserve, or paramilitary (which wikipedia is defining "armed units that are not considered part of a nation's formal military forces"). Think police, militia, etc.
That seems like an incredibly low bar to clear.
Poor kushner, must suck to have his homework assigned via executive order.
"They hurt America." A++ would make Great Again.
This is a terrible idea, that idiots would do unless they want to do a U-turn and campaign on facts. They did the same thing before calling the Brexit Referendum (bit earlier than that really, think it was before Cameron did his big campaign to renegotiate our relationship with Europe before asking Facists to run a campaign against him). Can tell you now, turns out you do quite well from them, everyone does nicely from specialising in slightly different things but does this across borders when you start to consider final products rather than individual components.
Yet as further analysis by the press will show, they do nothing to stop dirty foreigners touching things under a variety of visas, even tourists who have a visa waiver and use mastercard. They still touch things with their filthy foreign hands, rendering the whole system moot. What point is a trade deal if it doesn't stop immigration?
Same definition. Just with the realization that maintenance requires less spending than mobilization just as there is a difference between capital and income.
E.G. Suppose we spend 90% GPD on military for 5 years and then spend 1% for five years after that. The 1% was labor the whole time, and the rest was building equipment. At the end of 10 years we aren't "low military" because we have accumulated military equipment.
The US is pretty much there already. We have massive stockpiles which we simply update and maintain.
I'm now convinced we are talking about related but different things. You're talking about militarization in the sense of "to equip with armed forces, military supplies, or the like". I'm talking about militarization in the sense of "to make military"; "to imbue with militarism".
(http://www.dictionary.com/browse/militarization?s=t)
In the sense you're talking about, assuming constant force levels, rates of expenditure are everything. In the sense I'm talking about, they're but one facet of the puzzle. So measures of GDP, % of people under arms, etc. are measures of the degree in which the society has been "made military" and "imbued with militarism."
Hopefully we can now stop talking past each other.
To be fair
every finn carries a knife.
They'd have to for that raft trip with their friend Jim. There be pirates on that river!
Does your government spend as much on its military as the next highest 8 or 9 nations combined?
NO [ ]
YES[ ]
If you checked YES then you might live in a highly militarised nation
Does your government maintain more foreign bases than you have family members who you would recognise?
What if your country is also larger than the next 8 or 9 nations combined?
TBH I had no idea we spent that little (as a percentage of GDP) on the military and I'm a little taken aback.
I'd have to check the original numbers, but a lot of our military budget isn't accounted for in our actual budgets and therefore a lot of /GDP calculations.
Still smaller than you might think in comparison to things like SSI and Medicare/Medicaid (population size will do that), but also more than often shows up on paper.
This is all probably pretty far removed from Trump foreign policy except in the sense that he also has no answers to these questions.
DoD is half of all discretionary spending. We spend more on overseas bases than we do on the State Department. Even when we actually staff the State Department.
It's also part of why demanding NATO up their military spending is idiotic. We could cut our defense budget in half and still be dominant militarily thanks to those alliances. Or we could piss off joint defense allies like South Korea just to see what happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker-Peasant_Red_Guards
NK has a huge quasi military force
We have Obama and the sequester to thank for that. Our military spending has been flat(ish) since Obama took over. But much of the effect is in the fluctuation of GDP and not necessarily in massive changes in defense spending.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US&year_high_desc=true
It's likely the same reason why SK is #2, compulsory military service
Also, that number for Canada is hilariously wrong. According to the Canadian Forces itself it has somewhere between 80 and 90000 total, including reserves
Duterte has bragged about personally killing suspects without a trial. Trump probably thinks that is awesome.
Fucking gross and awful. This is frightening.
Is he really out out, or just out of official capacity?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
He's just a symptom of the disease, though. Trump loves authoritarians on his own--they're 'so strong', and many share his fashion sense.
Bannon shouldn't become seen as Trump's Cheney, the Dark Lord pulling the strings of an affable idiot (I know that's not what you were saying). That's the line Morning Joe interrupts Mika with whenever Trump does something he doesn't like. If Trump does something good (cruise missiles!), it's because he listened to Mattis or Tillerson, sometimes even Kushner. Something bad? Definitely Bannon or that silly intern Stephen Miller. Trump is reduced to bystander status, just a billionaire with a gift for connecting to the folks in the redneck riviera for some reason totally unrelated to peddling racist conspiracy theories.
Come on, is Trump. Of course that only out of official capacity, I mean, there were articles floating about how Bannon didn't lose his clearance.
...
That's just good game theory in action though.
If America's going for the military victory, and is in the lead, then everyone who's not threatened by America is going to divert their resources into culture or science or something, whilst being buddy-buddy with America.
So more militarised, yes.
But the lack of competition also allows America to not invest as much as it might if it were at war.
National Security Chief Tells South Korea U.S. Will Pay for Defense System
[quoteSEOUL—White House national-security chief Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster told his South Korean counterpart that the U.S. would pay for a missile-defense system designed to protect against a North Korean missile attack, apparently reversing President Donald Trump’s remark on Thursday that South Korea should pay for the roughly $1 billion battery.
In a 35-minute phone call Sunday morning, Gen. McMaster told Kim Kwan-jin, South Korea’s national-security adviser, that the U.S. would finance Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad, as agreed to by the two countries last year, according to a statement from South Korea’s presidential Blue House.][/quote]
This will get really interesting depending on how Trump reacts and what can do about this if he wants to shut it down. If he does McMaster and SK better pray he doesn't hear about this until it's too late.
Well, in this particular case. Cause he certainly has whined about it countless times in the last 101 days.
Indea and China are both >3x the population of the US. The EU has a greater population than the US.
That's for population, not GDP, which is the relevant metric for size when comparing military expenditures as a percent of GDP.
This lumps the EU into one enormous block, but gives you some idea of the scales involved:
Looking at projected 2017 GDP in trillions of dollars, we get:
So it takes three of the next largest world economies to equal the US economy in size. Something to remember as well is that because the US is a hegemon, it has heavily subsidized its allies defense needs, allowing them to reduce their own expenditures (Japan being a significant beneficiary here). This has led to the imbalance we see now.
Considering how Trump has the attention span of a petulant child and can't read more than half a page at a time without getting bored, it's really easy to keep him from finding out about stuff. Trump hasn't said a thing about Venezuela nationalizing the GM plant probably because they put it on page two where he wouldn't get around to it. They can all pretend they did their due diligence by having it on record, but never got around to it because Trump started whining ten minutes in that this was hard and he wanted his phone.
McMaster and Mattis seem smart and competent enough to figure this out and work around Trump, behind his back, though it does scare me in the long run if/when the military starts operating as its own organization separate from the government.
Are we planning on going to war against our allies? Because we should really group together the entire NATO military spend. Plus ANZUS, Japan, Korea, and other bilateral security arrangements. At which point we're heading towards 99% of global defense spending.
Oh yeah, and Trump just invited Duterte to visit the White House because of course he did. Of course Trump loves the idea of just massacring people in the streets by the thousands and fuck the courts.