http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/World_now_spends_over_%241_trillion_a_year_on_arms
June 7, 2005
"According to a new report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), total world military spending was $1.35 trillion in 2004. The institute says that this is just 6% off the all time record, set in 1987 at the end of the Cold War. However this record could soon be shattered as spending jumped 5% last year alone."
"The top five spenders in 2004 were as follows:
1. United States of America
2. United Kingdom
3. France
4. Japan
5. China"
Does the record comparison take inflation into account?
With such large sums, why aren't these militaries more effective? It's like they're investing all the money into conventional war-machines when it could be spent far more effectively in other ways.
Such a UNCONVENTIONAL WAR-MACHINES, like five-legged walking tanks on stilts, nuclear-capable glider aircraft, or ballistic submarines!
..."Such as", or "Such as on", or something that actually makes sense. orz
I meant more along the lines of investing in troops, or changing their equipment to be more Soviet in style.
Face it, you don't need F-22's and nuclear submarines for most current threats. Of course keeping some around is a good idea, but with current global hotspots an effective troop presence is much more useful. In the end it's bodies that do the grunt fighting, and later occupy an area.
The US has B2's, but its Humvees don't have any armor.
I still think we need those ballistic submarines.