World military expenditure in 2006

[Pierre]

_http://yearbook2007.sipri.org/chap8/

World military expenditure in 2006 is estimated to have reached $1204 billion in current dollars. This represents a 3.5 per cent increase in real terms since 2005 and a 37 per cent increase over the 10-year period since 1997. Average spending per capita increased from $173 in 2005 to $184.

World military expenditure is extremely unevenly distributed. In 2006 the 15 countries with the highest spending accounted for 83 per cent of the world total.

The large increase in the USA’s military spending is to a great extent due to the costly military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the increase resulted from supplementary allocations in addition to the regular budget. Between September 2001 and June 2006, the US Government provided a total of $432 billion in annual and supplemental appropriations under the heading ‘global war on terrorism’. This increase in US military spending has contributed to the deterioration of the US economy since 2001. Taking both immediate and long-term factors into account, the overall past and future costs until year 2016 to the USA for the war in Iraq have been estimated at $2267 billion.

In 2006 China’s military expenditure continued to increase rapidly, for the first time surpassing that of Japan and hence making China the biggest military spender in Asia and the fourth biggest in the world. Amid intense discussions, Japan decided, for the fifth consecutive year, to reduce its military spending in 2006 and to focus its military budget on missile defence.

In a comparison of government spending priorities between samples of countries in different per capita income groups, the ratio of military spending to social spending was found to be highest in those countries with the lowest per capita incomes. However, between 1999 and 2003, the share of military expenditure in GDP stayed at a constant level in the high- and middle-income country sample and decreased somewhat in the low-income sample. At the same time social spending as a share of GDP increased in the high- and low-income groups and remained relatively stable in middle-income countries.

 

[Locksmith]

There is a new website, http://visionofhumanity.com/about/index.php, Vision Of Humanity which was started this past May, 2007, that is putting out a Global Peace Index (GPI). They have come up with metrics that attempt to determine a peace score for each of 121 selected countries. These scores are then ranked by the most peaceful (internally and externally), the lowest score, to the least peaceful. The group is made up of personnel from The Economist Intelligence Unit, an international peace experts group and a study center of the University of Sydney.

The following is a partial list of their first GPI scores, based on data for 2004 - 2006:

RANK COUNTRY SCORE
001 Norway 1.357
002 New Zealand 1.363
003 Denmark 1.377
004 Ireland 1.396
005 Japan 1.413
006 Finland 1.447
007 Sweden 1.478
008 Canada 1.481
009 Portugal 1.481
010 Austria 1.483


049 United Kingdom 1.898


096 United States of America 2.317


112 Angola 2.587
113 Cote d' Ivoire 2.638
114 Lebanon 2.662
115 Pakistan 2.697
116 Colombia 2.770
117 Nigeria 2.898
118 Russia 2.903
119 Israel 3.033
120 Sudan 3.182
121 Iraq 3.437

The group used 24 "Indicators" to score each country; 5 that measure domestic and international conflict, 10 that measure internal safety and security and 9 that measure militarization. These would seem to have objective data available. I believe I also am reading correctly that their methodology relies to some degree on studies based on other studies, and also using objective and subjective internal scoring.

In addition, they have 33 "Drivers" which they have statistically tested with the Indicators for possible explanatory causes.

All in all, I find this study very interesting and perhaps useful to us all. I also can visualize ponerization as being present in nearly all measures, but not realized. I wonder if anything similar has previously been attempted specifically using measures of the degree of pathocracy present in countries. It may be that this study can be used as a proxy for that purpose.

I have some questions about the intent and use of some of their drivers, but most of those washed out with low correlation coefficients. I also wonder why the UK is considerably lower than the US' GPI score, something I haven't yet been able to successfully rationalize.

 

[Joe]

To be more accurate the study should have posted separate scores for internal and external 'peaceyness'

In that case, on the external score, and if the score was relative to the peaceyness of the nearest no very peacey country, America would receive a score of 100 and the next nearest country would receive a score of 1. Of course, Israel would not even appear since you have to be a legitimate nation to qualify.

Perhaps a more accurate way to reflect the state of the world would be to draw up a list of countries and index them according to how closely their metaphorical mouths are to the teet of the sow of American capitalism. Another list of countries could then be made which could be indexed according to the extent to which the resources of that country had been bled dry by the blood-sucking maw of the very same vampiric American sow of capitalism, and then one list could be cross referenced against the other.

Just a crazy idea. But what are the odds the Economist will take it on?

Joe

 

[Locksmith]

To be more accurate the study should have posted separate scores for internal and external 'peaceyness'

In that case, on the external score, and if the score was relative to the peaceyness of the nearest no very peacey country, America ...

One can see the raw scores by visiting the Rankings page, [http://visionofhumanity.com/rankings/] and then clicking on the desires country. It is messy, but these scores may be copied, one by one, into a spreadsheet and then cleaned a bit in order and compare the various indicators. Below is an example that process; It come closer to dividing the internal - external elements.



INDICATORS INDICATOR GROUPS UK US
Level of organised conflict (internal) Conflict & propensity to conflict 1 1
Number of deaths from organised conflict (internal) Conflict & propensity to conflict 2 2
Relations with neighbouring countries Conflict & propensity to conflict 1 1
Number of external and internal conflicts fought: 2000-05 Conflict & propensity to conflict 4 3
Estimated number of deaths from organised conflict (external) Conflict & propensity to conflict 2 3

Ease of access to weapons of minor destruction Militarization 2 3
Volume of trsfrs of major convl weapons, as recipient (Imports) / 100M people Militarization 1 1
Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP Militarization 2 2
Number of armed services personnel per 100,000 people Militarization 2 2
UN Deployments 2006-07 (percentage of total forces) Militarization 5 5
Non-UN Deployments 2006-07 (percentage of total forces) Militarization 3 5
Aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 people Militarization 1 1
Volume of trsfrs of major conv weapons as supplier (exports) / 100M, people Militarization 2 3
Military capability/sophistication Militarization 4 5

Level of distrust in other citizens Society safety and security 3 2
Number of internal security officers and police 100,000 people Society safety and security 2 2
Number of homicides per 100,000 people Society safety and security 1 2
Number of jailed population per 100,000 people Society safety and security 2 5
Likelihood of violent demonstrations Society safety and security 1 2
Level of violent crime Society safety and security 1 1
Political instability Society safety and security 1 1
Respect for human rights Society safety and security 2 3
Potential for terriorist acts Society safety and security 3 4
Number of displaced people as a percentage of the population Society safety and security 1 1


As to the 'ey' you tack onto 'peac,' I'm guessing you don't place a lot of value in these studies or perhaps just this particular one. I think that most of these studies are not all that practical, but do try to appreciate them for what they are and what worthwhile parts I can glean.

Yeah, the world is a mess and there doesn't seem much that I am going to be able to do about it. But, I'll keep trying for as long as I can. In the long look, empires come and they go. This isn't the first and it probably will not be the last. I do hope that the knowledge of ponerology becomes mainstream in the world's people, schools, etc. Then, maybe there will be a chance of staving off the next round; if we are ever vigilant.

 

[vinny]

lets just take a look at a couple of those stats:

Likelihood of violent demonstrations - UK 1, US 2

likelyhood of violent demonstrations can be down to two completely opposite factors, which makes this stat completely meaningless:
1. a happy populace living in a fair society
2. an oppressed populace living in societal lockdown, who dare not speak so much as a whisper of dissent, for fear of their very lives.


Respect for human rights - UK 2, US 3
Um... you don't get a rating for 'human rights' by pretending to respect human rights, or by respecting the human rights of SOME of the population. If your country locks up people without charge, or invades a foreign nation and kills innocent civilians, then there is NO respect for human rights. Just because some of the population are safely tucked up at home, artificially isolated away from the human-rights violations that their country perpetrates, does NOT make the country a 'human-right loving nation'. So again... this stat is meaningless. The worlds largest military force (and so the largest perpetrator of genocide and oppression by force) cannot score anything other than 'nil points' for 'respect for human rights'.

 

[Joe]

As to the 'ey' you tack onto 'peac,' I'm guessing you don't place a lot of value in these studies or perhaps just this particular one. I think that most of these studies are not all that practical, but do try to appreciate them for what they are and what worthwhile parts I can glean.

Yeah, the world is a mess and there doesn't seem much that I am going to be able to do about it. But, I'll keep trying for as long as I can. In the long look, empires come and they go. This isn't the first and it probably will not be the last. I do hope that the knowledge of ponerology becomes mainstream in the world's people, schools, etc. Then, maybe there will be a chance of staving off the next round; if we are ever vigilant.

Yeah, I was being a little sarcastic. I mean, it is sort of nice to see the US getting a high score and close to that of certain African nations, and it is laughable to see the UK get a mid range score. It's just that the "peacefulness" of any country seems to be determined by way of very official sources. Like they have African and Middle Eastern nations at the top because of their respect for human rights and potential for terrorist acts and Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP etc, but in many cases the existence of these traits in this countries is largely due to the secretive actions of other nations, such as American or Britain or Israel, but this does not affect the ranking of these. The problem is that once the data has been collected based on a flawed perspective, even if they collect empirical data, the picture that it presents is still very distorted.

Joe

 

[Locksmith]

It is not be my intent to defend this study. I see some indications of biases present that I'm sure pleases the 'NWO' crowd. For example, is the end result of a country's military aims that much different between sending their young off to war directly or via a UN deployment. I don't see a whole lot of difference in the end result to the people on the ground, but I'll bet the globalists do.

So, I'm not trying to defend or push this GPI study. It was interesting to me and I made a connection with it and pathocracy, and then wondered if the study might tie in with anything going on here.

With that behind me, just a couple of observations on the following replies --

Likelihood of violent demonstrations - UK 1, US 2

likelyhood of violent demonstrations can be down to two completely opposite factors, which makes this stat completely meaningless:
1. a happy populace living in a fair society
2. an oppressed populace living in societal lockdown, who dare not speak so much as a whisper of dissent, for fear of their very lives.

These examples are the extremes on a continuum, and I agree with your conclusions for them. But the bulk of the world resides between these extremes where demonstrations, some violent, are more likely to occur.

I note that this is a 'qualitative' indicator scored solely by The Economist Intelligence Unit analysts. While still interesting, this does weaken its objectivity quite a lot for me.

Respect for human rights - UK 2, US 3

Um... you don't get a rating for 'human rights' by pretending to respect human rights, or by respecting the human rights of SOME of the population. If your country locks up people without charge, or invades a foreign nation and kills innocent civilians, then there is NO respect for human rights.

{snip}

I get your point and certainly do agree with it. In fairness to the study, they did provide other indicators for warring on other nations. This indicator was, I think, intended to measure intra-country respect for human rights.

I note that this indicator is also a qualitative one, and that by proxy they are using a previous Amnesty International study. This likewise considerably weakens it usefulness for me.

Like they have African and Middle Eastern nations at the top because of their respect for human rights and potential for terrorist acts and Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP etc, but in many cases the existence of these traits in this countries is largely due to the secretive actions of other nations, such as American or Britain or Israel, but this does not affect the ranking of these.

Agreed, military and economic alliances, and their potentially one-sidedness is not considered at all as motivation for behaviors being measured.

The problem is that once the data has been collected based on a flawed perspective, even if they collect empirical data, the picture that it presents is still very distorted.

Absolutely, "the devil is in the detail." I doubt there are many studies around that do not have such flaws in them to some degree.

I continue to be amazed at the intellect present, and abundance of material here. I hope to steep in it for a long time and continue to learn.

Thanks to both of you,

Jim

 

[Joe]

Absolutely, "the devil is in the detail." I doubt there are many studies around that do not have such flaws in them to some degree.

Maybe we could publish our own more objective study using the data the really counts?

Joe

 

[Locksmith]

Maybe we could publish our own more objective study using the data the really counts?

Great, count me in! I do have some skills and experience with these things. But, I am a neophyte with pathocracy and ponerology. I'm trying to come up to speed, but that's going to take some time. However, the concepts of the subject that I've been able to glean, seem natural and intuitive to me.

The point is that I'm not subject-qualified to lead here. I am testing retirement, so have the time. I would be willing to do the grunt work, but will need guidance.

I'd think we would want to first know if anything like this has been previously done/attempted at SOTT. And, we should have a clear goal as to what we want to achieve and how it will be useful.

Jim

 

[Joe]

I dont think any in depth knowledge of ponerology is necessary. We just need to collect data and arrange it according to our understanding of how the world really works. The problem is access to the data. Does the new scientist publish its raw data, like actual numbers for the different categories? If so, we could use that

Joe