World now spends over $1 trillion a year on arms (6)

1 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2005-06-08 01:43 ID:45tBfSLX

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"

2 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-06-09 11:32 ID:0MTW+Fsp

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.

3 Name: Unverified Source 2005-06-09 12:05 ID:KZef+ROa

Such a UNCONVENTIONAL WAR-MACHINES, like five-legged walking tanks on stilts, nuclear-capable glider aircraft, or ballistic submarines!

4 Name: Unverified Source 2005-06-09 12:28 ID:KZef+ROa

..."Such as", or "Such as on", or something that actually makes sense. orz

5 Name: dmpk2k!hinhT6kz2E 2005-06-10 02:24 ID:B0R8YeKO

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.

6 Name: Unverified Source 2005-06-10 13:17 ID:KZef+ROa

I still think we need those ballistic submarines.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.