Isn't it "War Spending" now?
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Cool Guides
6403 readers
1 users here now
Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community
1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.
2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.
3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.
4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.
5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.
6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.
Community Guidelines
-
Direct Image Links Only Only direct links to .png, .jpg, and .jpeg image formats are permitted.
-
Educational Infographics Only Infographics must aim to educate and inform with structured content. Purely narrative or non-informative infographics may be removed.
-
Serious Guides Only Nonserious or comedy-based guides will be removed.
-
No Harmful Content Guides promoting dangerous or harmful activities/materials will be removed. This includes content intended to cause harm to others.
By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
One thing to keep in mind is that defense spending tends to rely heavily on local provision. You generally can't just import soldiers, and keeping military-industrial supply chains local or at minimum trusted is also a requirement. So using something like a PPP-adjusted figure rather than a nominal figure is probably going to be closer to what you're actually buying, and that rather considerably diminishes the difference.
kagis for someone discussing the matter
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/chinas-military-rise-comparative-military-spending-china-and-us
Given current data, China’s military expenditure in PPP terms is estimated to be $541 billion, or 59% of US spending, and its equipment levels are only 42% of US levels. Comparing trends over time shows that the US has matched China in recent years, albeit at the cost of a much higher defence burden.
The underlying mechanism here is that China has a lot of people who will work for rather-lower wages than in the US, which means that each nominal dollar China budgets for their military can buy them more military capacity than in the US, via taking advantage of those lower wages.
If the US had a large supply of workers willing to work at Chinese wages, and could use them to drive its military and military-industrial system, that wouldn't be a factor.
China also owns their own resources while the US doesn’t so the US has to pay a middle man to build anything.
Also, this probably includes what the US sells.
Isn't the USA numbers very skewed because they include like healthcare and pensions in their numbers, even for former soldiers, while say europeans don't?
Also, (and I'm no kind of expert) it seems there's a lot of graft involved in the spending, such as $67 charged for a screw, and that kind of thing. A good bit of it due to a kickback-type arrangement between the politicians involved (think Dick Cheney) and the defense contractors who get awarded the deals.
Some of those "$50 screw" numbers come from cancelling projects with high total cost. A contract might be paid to produce a thousand of something and get cancelled after making 10 of them, inflating the per unit cost by a ton
Thanks for the clarification. I was indeed just parroting what I'd heard & read several times, without really understanding the mechanisms involved.
well, it's only some. Plus there's plenty of conspiracy theories around those types of costs being how the gov funds secret projects.
Well that still counts as stupid ways to waste money, with a side of corruption
The Army manual says that screw must meet X, Y, and Z specs. If you don't have the tooling for those exact specs, you're going to charge more to make up the cost of retooling.
Of course there's grift and plain foolishness. Local base Commander paid a painter I knew to stop work for two weeks and screw around waiting for his commander to visit. Wanted the boss to see the painters in action, look busy.
Speaking of specs, there are old rules that never changed. Worked at a print shop where a standard 24x36" blueprint was $.63. Nope. Navy had to have the final set of plans printed on plastic media, $3/page. Now multiply by 150 for a modest set of prints.
i think its a very small percentage, only 62billion goes to healthcare in the defense budget. half goes to defense contractors, which is huge.
load more comments
(4 replies)
*war
If the VA was a military it would be in the top 5.
yet they still lost against the Taliban,
shame
More of a “tactical surrender” like every conflict they get into.
That's called losing.
love those bs terms
"preemptive strike", yhea, that's a first strike and you just started a war.
"tactical surrender" losing
"strategic retreat" running away
"collateral" civilians
We don't really fight wars like the ancients did, which is a good thing. Back then, it was total war with either wholesale enslavement of the population, or killing whoever you could get your hands on, then salting all arable land to kill off whoever was left, and to ensure nobody could live there for centuries.
It was brutally effective and completely wiped entire civilizations off the map.
Why are you bringing ancient roman warfare?
By that logic the allies didn't win ww2?
The US military is machine designed to siphoning public tax fund towards shareholders pockets.
that's why it lost a 20 year war against the poorest people on the planet.
the was was lost, but the profit was amazing for the real winners. ie, shareholders.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Y.S.K. some countries are bigger than others. Per capita or G.T.F.O.
Percentage of GSP would also be a relevant figure
This is the weirdest justification to me. Military spending is for specific purposes. Like, if your hostile neighbor has twice the population as you and spends X dollars, then you don't spend 0.5 * X dollars. You're probably going to end up with higher spending per capita in order to reach parity. So why on earth would we compare by capita?
Please look at basically any asymmetric war in the past 75 years. E.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Ukraine.
You do not need to spend as much on defense as your larger opponent.
Yeah, now look at casualty rates in Vietnam and Afghanistan and ask yourself whether that's really what most people would pick as a Plan A.
Looking at just combatant deaths:
| Conflict | Country / Side | Years Active | Total Military Deaths | Duration (Days) | Deaths per Day (Avg.) | Approx. Troops Engaged | Deaths per 1,000 Troops (Full War) | Relative Intensity (U.S. in Vietnam = 1×) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WWII – European Theater | USSR (Red Army) | 1941–1945 | ~8,700,000 | ~1,410 | ≈6,170/day | ~34,000,000 | ~255 | ≈310× |
| WWII – European Theater | Germany (Wehrmacht) | 1941–1945 | ~4,300,000 | ~1,410 | ≈3,050/day | ~17,000,000 | ~250 | ≈150× |
| Vietnam War | North Vietnam (PAVN + VC) | 1965–1975 | ~600,000–800,000 | ~3,650 | ≈165–220/day | ~3,000,000 | ~230 | ≈8–11× |
| Vietnam War | South Vietnam (ARVN) | 1965–1975 | ~250,000–313,000 | ~3,650 | ≈70–85/day | ~850,000–1,000,000 | ~280 | ≈4× |
| Vietnam War | United States | 1965–1973 | 58,220 | ~2,920 | ≈19.9/day | ~2,700,000 | ~21 | 1× (baseline) |
| Soviet–Afghan War | USSR | 1979–1989 | 14,453 | ~3,330 | ≈4.3/day | ~620,000 | ~23 | 0.2× |
| Soviet–Afghan War | Afghan Mujahideen | 1979–1989 | ~75,000–90,000 | ~3,330 | ≈23–27/day | ~250,000–300,000 | ~300 | ≈1–1.3× |
| U.S.–Afghan War | United States | 2001–2021 | 2,461 | ~7,270 | ≈0.34/day | ~775,000 (rotated) | ~3 | 0.017× |
| U.S.–Afghan War | Afghan National Forces | 2001–2021 | ~66,000 | ~7,270 | ≈9/day | ~300,000 | ~220 | ≈0.45× |
| U.S.–Afghan War | Taliban & Insurgents | 2001–2021 | ~52,000–60,000 | ~7,270 | ≈7–8/day | ~200,000–250,000 | ~250 | ≈0.35× |
Now look at combatants and civilians:
| Conflict | Country / Side | Years Active | Military Deaths | Civilian Deaths | Duration (Days) | Total Deaths/Day (Avg.) | Approx. Troops / Population Affected | Relative Intensity (U.S. in Vietnam = 1×) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WWII – European Theater | USSR (Red Army + Civilians) | 1941–1945 | ~8,700,000 | ~15,000,000 | ~1,410 | ≈16,900/day | ~34M troops / 110M pop | ≈850× |
| WWII – European Theater | Germany (Wehrmacht + Civilians) | 1941–1945 | ~4,300,000 | ~3,800,000 | ~1,410 | ≈5,750/day | ~17M troops / 70M pop | ≈290× |
| Vietnam War | North Vietnam (PAVN + VC + Civilians) | 1965–1975 | ~600,000–800,000 | ~1,000,000 | ~3,650 | ≈440–500/day | ~3M troops / 17M pop | ≈22–25× |
| Vietnam War | South Vietnam (ARVN + Civilians) | 1965–1975 | ~250,000–313,000 | ~1,000,000 | ~3,650 | ≈340–360/day | ~1M troops / 18M pop | ≈17× |
| Vietnam War | United States | 1965–1973 | 58,220 | N/A | ~2,920 | ≈19.9/day | ~2.7M troops | 1× (baseline) |
| Soviet–Afghan War | USSR | 1979–1989 | 14,453 | N/A | ~3,330 | ≈4.3/day | ~620,000 | 0.2× |
| Soviet–Afghan War | Afghan Mujahideen + Civilians | 1979–1989 | ~75,000–90,000 | ~850,000–1,000,000 | ~3,330 | ≈280–330/day | ~15–17M pop | ≈14–17× |
| U.S.–Afghan War | United States | 2001–2021 | 2,461 | N/A | ~7,270 | ≈0.34/day | ~775,000 | 0.017× |
| U.S.–Afghan War | Afghan National Forces + Civilians | 2001–2021 | ~66,000 | ~46,000 | ~7,270 | ≈15/day | ~35M pop | ≈0.7× |
| U.S.–Afghan War | Taliban & Insurgents | 2001–2021 | ~52,000–60,000 | – | ~7,270 | ≈7–8/day | ~200,000–250,000 | ≈0.35× |
So now let’s look at the Vietnam war and military expenditure for each side:
| Country / Side | Years Active | Estimated Military Expenditure (1965–1975) | Approx. 2025 USD (Inflation-Adjusted) | Military Deaths | Combatant Deaths per $1B (2025 USD) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 1965–1973 | ~$141 billion (nominal) | ≈$1.3 trillion (2025 USD) | 58,220 | ≈45 deaths per $1B | Includes DoD + support spending; excludes veterans’ costs |
| North Vietnam (PAVN + VC) | 1965–1975 | ~$4.6 billion (nominal, incl. Soviet/Chinese aid) | ≈$43 billion (2025 USD) | ~700,000 | ≈16,000 deaths per $1B | Relied heavily on foreign aid and low-cost mobilization |
| Metric | Result | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Expenditure ratio (U.S. ÷ N. Vietnam) | ≈30× | U.S. spent ~30× more than North Vietnam |
| Combat deaths ratio (N. Vietnam ÷ U.S.) | ≈12× | North Vietnam suffered ~12× more combat deaths |
| Cost-per-death ratio (U.S. ÷ N. Vietnam) | ≈350× | U.S. spent ~350× more dollars per soldier killed |
Interpretation:
- North Vietnam traded manpower for resources, accepting high losses.
- The U.S. used capital- and technology-intensive warfare.
- Despite enormous expenditure, asymmetric strategy and morale offset the imbalance.
Tie it all together… in total war against a near peer, casualty rates are significantly higher. 50x for the Red Army in WWII, 17x for the Wehrmacht.
In asymmetric war, casualty rates are lower overall. And total GDP expenditure is significantly lower.
I don’t want to ignore the human cost here. But we’re talking about specific quantifiable metrics here, not the emotional trauma
That was entirely unnecessary and missing the point.
I don’t want to ignore the human cost here. But we’re talking about specific quantifiable metrics here, not the emotional trauma
Then it's not a valid analysis.
What question are you even trying to answer here? Because whatever it is seems to be entirely unrelated to anything I was talking about.
I just realized you wrote the infuriatingly wrong claim, "North Vietnam traded manpower for resources, accepting high losses." No, dumbass, they didn't skimp on equipment because they were "willing to accept casualties," they didn't have money for equipment and fought tooth and nail with everything they had to avoid colonial subjugation. It wasn't some kind of policy choice.
Building all my bombs in the Vatican so I get that high per capita ratio
Make sure to baptise them so you get holy hand grenades
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's gonna be funny though when the aliens finally show up and obliterate the US without even trying. lmao
I mean.
I'm not sure the aliens will ever show up.
Most of that money stays in the country. If we shut down the tiny helicopter training base by my house, it would crush the local economy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The United States provides security guarantees for most of the western world. That was the entire point of post-WWII reconstruction.
The US will provide security guarantees. Participating countries will provide free market access to their citizens.
- The Marshall Plan
The US has been in a position to overspend (proportionally) on defense due to having the strongest economy basically since WWII. Other countries are able to invest in their own economy, innovation or infrastructure without needing to spend money on defense.
Ignoring any Trump jingoism, look at NATO expenditures. These countries agreed to a certain level of spending based on their GDP so the US wasn’t the sole guarantor, but no one met their obligations for decades.
The US is completely free to reduce their spending to match the rest of NATO but does not.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The United States provides security guarantees for most of the western world
This is just American exceptionalism. The west hasn't waged a "defensive" war since 1945, all it's done with its militaries is destroy other countries: Vietnam, Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Yugoslavia are just a few examples that come to mind, tens of millions of lives lost and tens of millions more ruined just in these conflicts.
The world would be a far, far, FAR better place if the west didn't have this level of military capabilities.
Peter G. Peterson
The most "Booty McBootface" type white name I've seen.
I am Peter, son of Peter, son of Peter.
And it virtually only ever goes up. More and more of our labor is going towards feeding the imperial war machine, while social services are gutted. Our corrupt politicians just want to line the pockets of the corporations that make bombs, and they start conflicts around the globe to justify it. The primary function of the military is essentially money laundering, to channel public funds into private hands.
And most of it goes either into super inflated prices for the most silly things, or into projects that no one can talk about and are unsupervised.
"War" spending, now.
Edit: I am slow
When you hate and fear everyone, this is what you spend your money on.
at least half goes to defense contractors.
2 Trillions that could have been invested in education, science and welfare instead.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Socialize (military) spending, vassalize smaller countries, privatize wealth, that's the american way of running businesses
its "necessary" once you figure out that when people get tired of the complications caused by it, they are willing to use the military to quash discent on behalf of the elite class, to maintain control.
all i know is, i play warhammer total war 3 a lot. and when my skavens are starving and start an uprising, i just send a lord with his army to quash the discenters, and maintain control.
simple as.
Depends on how you define "necessary".
More than actual use, the American military is about "implied threat"
"Do as we say, or else".
Its always been that way. Without the implied threat, the other world leaders would have told cheetolini to pound sand on day one.
Hold up. I see three NATO countries in that top-spending list, yet Trump is crying that they don't spend enough? It seems, as everyone seems to agree, that the problem is the US spends way too much. But since US "defense" spending is an obvious grift to shift public money to private pockets this isn't too surprising.
view more: next ›