Talk:Military budget

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Politics Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why are some of the words in this mostly English article in French? "Defénse", for example. Pointing to the French translation of "United States of America" in the list of countries but no other country? "Dépenses en armement"? I understand that the source for the information is in French, but if the work is translated why not translate it all? Why not place the French version in the French defense budget Wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.B. Nicholson-Owens (talk • contribs)

because french is a cool language

It needs more work, of course. This is a collaborative effort - your assistance (small or large) would be greatly appreciated. --Singkong2005 01:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Statements

There appears to be vandalism within the list of country budgets. The histories show several different budgets - I'm not sure which is the proper 2002 budget, though I am certain the current value of $22B is wrong.

The article states , "While the United States now spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined..." This is not accurtae, as other articles (namely Military of the United States) state that the budget of the united states is equal to the next 20 largest military budgets combined. Still a huge number, but not the same as the entire world combined. Rugz 14:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Defense budget → Military budget - "Military" is the macro-term of this article's parent category, Category:Military. The terms "military products" and "military expenditure" are also used throughout this article. "Military" is also the term used in associated articles, such as Military budget of the United States, Military budget of the People's Republic of China, and Military budget of Canada.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Australian budget

Australia has a budget of 22 million. putting it between germany and spain. can someone put in australia and the current defece budget, because it is pretty high on the list

  Australia is not a member of NATO, that list was just NATO countries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.208.179.130 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan currently had NATO status? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.64.24 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW

US$13 billion For Russia Thats really the lowest number that i have seen everythere ^^ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.235.114 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add link?

Do you think you could add this quote from William Blum's book "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower": "If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born." Stars4change (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European military

According to Kees Homan of the Clingendael Instituut, the creation of a European Army would allow great savings in military expenditures. At present, each country has its own army, which requires that a lot of components need to be made in an equally large number as there are european countries. Rather than doing this, and possibly using pooling and sharing (a technique in which european countries use some units from each other), it is best to create a single European country (in which no multiple units need to be created). However, European political leadrers seem to be divided on creating such an army, and little progress is being made in creating it.^[1]

Another issue of military spending that can be handled more efficiently is the type of equipment bought. Appearantly, purchasing costs of a same piece of miltary hardware (ie tank, military aircraft, ...) go up by 20-30% each 10 years. It hence seems to make more sense to use less expensive hardware, perhaps remotely-operated/robotic to prevent human fatalities using these less efficient hardware.

Mention in article. 91.182.37.177 (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant for one of the EU articles, not this one. David (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kijk magazine, 9/2012

[1] Kijk magazine, 9/2012

[1]