this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
321 points (97.3% liked)

Cool Guides

6124 readers
3 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

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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tal@lemmy.today 43 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago

China also owns their own resources while the US doesn’t so the US has to pay a middle man to build anything.

[–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Also, this probably includes what the US sells.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 31 points 2 months ago
[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Isn't it "War Spending" now?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (7 children)

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?

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the clarification. I was indeed just parroting what I'd heard & read several times, without really understanding the mechanisms involved.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

well, it's only some. Plus there's plenty of conspiracy theories around those types of costs being how the gov funds secret projects.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well that still counts as stupid ways to waste money, with a side of corruption

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

The government did already

[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

It's officially war spending now.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"War" spending, now.

Edit: I am slow

[–] individual@toast.ooo 11 points 2 months ago
[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] dellish@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (4 children)

yet they still lost against the Taliban,

shame

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

More of a “tactical surrender” like every conflict they get into.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 8 points 2 months ago

Socialize (military) spending, vassalize smaller countries, privatize wealth, that's the american way of running businesses

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

2 Trillions that could have been invested in education, science and welfare instead.

[–] Bldck@beehaw.org 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The US is completely free to reduce their spending to match the rest of NATO but does not.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thatradomguy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's gonna be funny though when the aliens finally show up and obliterate the US without even trying. lmao

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

I mean.

I'm not sure the aliens will ever show up.

[–] Alloi@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

at least half goes to defense contractors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ThrowawayInTheYear23@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

If the VA was a military it would be in the top 5.

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Peter G. Peterson

The most "Booty McBootface" type white name I've seen.

[–] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 2 points 2 months ago

I am Peter, son of Peter, son of Peter.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Y.S.K. some countries are bigger than others. Per capita or G.T.F.O.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

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?

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Building all my bombs in the Vatican so I get that high per capita ratio

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Make sure to baptise them so you get holy hand grenades

[–] Echofox@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

So which is it. Stellaris, Hearts of Iron, or Crusader Kings?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] m4xie@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Percentage of GSP would also be a relevant figure

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] bagsy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

When you hate and fear everyone, this is what you spend your money on.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 4 points 2 months ago

This must be the most 1984 thing I've read all week.

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›