This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military budget of the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Military budget of the United States received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liam.Guevara.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cameronjbird, Ariapaez, ThePatman42, Rileeylynn.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It is important to protect Wikipedia from polemicism. In this article unreliable and invalid budgetary data from a leftist organization, SIPRI, are manipulated to advance an ideological perspective. We should ask the writer to remove the absurd graph or at least admit the distortions. Consider these observations from truthandpolitics.org: "Many caveats should be kept in mind when making international comparisons of military expenditures: Data for developing and nondemocratic countries may be incomplete, which may lead to crude estimates or underestimates of military spending. Conversions from local currencies to a common currency (here, US dollars) may lead to misleading comparisons of the spending of different nations. Currency conversions can be done using official (or market) exchange rates or with "purchasing power parity" (PPP) The previous two caveats imply that estimates of world military spending must also be treated with caution." A better comparative tool for examining US defense expenditure is to use percent of gdp, both from the perspective of history (perhaps since 1960) and relative to other countries (with the caveats above). I suspect that would provide equitable ammunition for both sides of the defense expenditure debate, and would serve to provide a more objective start point for the conversation. (end).
I find the opinion above very interesting. The individual above mentions "unreliable and invalid budgetary data from a leftist organization", but then points to the clear right-wing bias of truthandpolitics.org for "objective" observations. There is not an objective, unbiased economist on the planet who would recommend examining trends in regards to US military/defense expenditure solely through comparison to the GDP. Take something that has exploded in size within the past sixty years (the US GDP), and use that as a base for the formulation of a ratio to measure the objective, independent growth of US military/defense expenditure in comparison to other countries? Now that's misleading.--Jackbirdsong 05:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I should pre-empt any furor over the caption I provided in my chart. The United States has maintained the indicated hegemony since the end of the second World War. This means that the trend of the world's economy has been noticably in favor of the interests of the US, inarguably, and peaking in the 1950's. I say that this is in decline because, first of all, the developing world, notably China, has been catching up and pushing for fairer trade policies in institutions such as the WTO, and also the European Union is functioning in an increasingly unified manner, albeit that its interests frequently coincide with those of the United States. In purely economic terms--that is, in numbers, to say nothing of ideology--the caption is true. I'm thinking now it could maybe be rephrased, though. What it has to do with an article on the US's military budget should be obvious. It's well-documented that an economic hegemony is much more effective with a large military to back it up and protect its interests. Just look at previous such nations throughout history: Mother England, the USA's immediate predecessor; Rome; the Ottomans. Aratuk 23:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Update: rephrased. Aratuk
Anyone who pops on here and starts using the usually manipulative partisan wordings, e.g. "leftist", etc. is not worth the time to read. This is a very serious issue - and, with a significant amount of homework, the real numbers can ultimately be determined. The only question is whether there is a genuine interest in accurate numbers or simply partisan manipulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aner25 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
"It is important to protect Wikipedia from polemicism" -- Are you suggesting that your rant be deleted? -- 98.108.202.17 (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that determining the amount of money actually spent on "military" expenditures is not as clear cut as it seems. For example, in government figures, interest on indebted past military expenditures is generally ignored, and unbudgeted military requests are rarely calculated in the total picture of government spending. Lord help you if you want to find a percentage, because the total nature of government spending is
This infamous POV documents the wide discrepancy better than i can. I'm not saying either of the POVs on that page are correct (tho I have my leanings), but I do think this is an issue that ought to be documented further. --Combuchan 07:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the table is biased. Not enough to make an NPOV dispute, but it ought to be rationalised with purchasing power parity or not displayed at all. Another option would be to compare the actual percentages of military spending (if we ever determine that, see my complaints above). The USA wouldn't be at all on top then.
Then again, I think a certain part of expenditure comparsion between countries is meaningless. During the Cold War, NASA developed a ballpoint pen at an enormous sum for pilots in low gravity conditions. The russians simply used a pencil. Both did the exact same thing. --Combuchan 07:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following table from Military history of the United States, where it really didn't belong (not enough historical perspective). Free to a good home. --Kevin Myers 05:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
As of 2005, according to the General Accounting Office, the U.S. budget included the following planned or requested military expenses:
U.S. military budget request per Fiscal Year | |
Year | Budget |
2005 | $420.7 billion |
2004 | $399.1 billion |
2003 | $396.1 billion |
2002 | $343.2 billion |
2001 | $310 billion |
2000 | $288.8 billion |
Specifically, with respect to this: "As of the early 21st century, the United States is the only military in the world which is capable of global operations." - it certainly sounds like a gross overstatement to me. What about China, Russia, EU? --int19h 05:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I'd argue it's not a gross overstatement. No other military in the world can operate, long term, anywhere in the world, other than the United States'. European forces require American logistical support, and China can't project power beyond flight range of her shores. Russia can barely feed her soldiers, supplying them outside Russia is just impossible.
And don't forget that the US Navy is still the only navy with a true multirole carrier, all the others are either VSTOL carriers or carry a much smaller airwing. (And there's only one or two of the second type extant.)
-Sounds like a bad case of hubris. What, does the lack of a "multirole" carrier actually prevent these other forces from projecting power around the world if they wish it? I think not.
-First, you're just confusing Europe's desire to have the US pay for things like logistical support if they can get it. Don't mistake "using/accepting" American help with "relying/needing" it. Postwar Europe hasn't truly needed to project it's military capabilities somewhere longterm without the US first stepping in and "offering" its help (thereby preserving its raison d'etre for having so many military bases around Europe and keeping Europe from developing a true rival force of power projection). American "help" to other countries serves its own economic/political purposes as well.
-Second, you're just talking about the quality of force projection, but as we all noticed in Korea, Vietnam, (Iraq?), highest-tech weaponry doesn't in itself guarantee dominance (let alone indicate their full power capability).
-And what about the military forces (Self Defense Forces) of Japan? Don't laugh: China and (both) Koreas sure aren't. They have the technology, carriers, airpower, resources, manpower and capabilities necessary to project long term power anywhere in the world (yes, even without US help, again were it necessary). Of course, memories of past wars, Article 9 of their Constitution and the current anti-war sentiment of a majority of its population prevents them from said projection, but we aren't talking about the "will" here, we're talking about if they have the the "way" or means to do so. Right?
What we need to avoid is looking at this from the perspective of "could have" the statement is that the US military is presently the only military capable of sustaining global imperialism, if you can name one other global imperial power then you can remove the statement. Will to dominate is just as much a factor in 'projecting global sustained power' as size of the force or logistics know-how. 67.11.70.176 (talk)Rohny —Preceding undated comment added 10:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC).
"National belief that the United States must maintain a global military presence to uphold democracy". I suppose the word "belief" is crucial here, because the US is _very_ selective in "upholding democracy". In fact, I think an analysis of the US actions rather than the rethorics would show that economic interests are a lot more fundamental in US military decisions than politics. Unless someone objects, I will rephrase this to simply "that the United States must maintain a global military presence". Piet 16:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a question about the statement: "The current (2005) United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than China's, which places second." Now, the actual military spending of PRC and its ranking are still unclear according to the corresponding article in Wikipedia. The statement give the impression that the problem is settled and the conclusion is finalized, which is apparently not the case. I suggest the statement should refer to the page about military spending of PRC.
The article makes the point that Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are funded entirely through supplemental discretionary spending several times. I don't believe this to be entirely true. Supplemental spending is used to cover yearly budget shortfalls, but I believe large segments of the conflict are now financed directly through the defense budget. Each year's defense budget is adjusted based on all the past years spending including any supplemental spending. So while the first year of the war was largely supplemental, this years defense budget includes previous years supplemental spending incorporated within the current budgeted items.
Also why does the chart in the discussion above list a different level of defense spending than in the main article. This is an inconsistancy which should be research and fixed.
-As for supplemental spending not being included in the current year's budget, both the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) (http://www.basicint.org) as well as the online blog "Iraq Slogger" (http://www.iraqslogger.com) in addition to the National Priorities Project (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) all maintain that the war efforts in these two countries are still funded through the use of supplemental spending. However, the last source states (at http://costofwar.com/numbers.html) that there were two exceptions to this for Iraq (i.e. extra money for Iraq was added to the Department of Defense budget). The total of these two exceptions are around US$65 Billion dollars (or around 18-20% of total funds devoted to the Iraq effort.) Take your pick of sources and hope it helps.
This page could comment on the role of military spending as a subsidy for the high technology industry (not only in the USA, of course).
I would say that parts of this section may not be totally objective. It seems to me that this section was written with the aim of justifying the military budget amount, rather than objectively stating facts. For example;
In the first reason: "Since the 1940s, there has been a national consensus within the United States...", and "there remains a national belief that..."
In the third reason: "while there is a national consensus...there is also a national consensus..."
The phrases 'national consensus' and 'national belief' stand out here. Does every single American agree that '<the> military must maintain the capability to fight and win wars overseas in order to defend American allies and to maintain control over the high seas to protect American trade from disruption.'? If a majority of Americans do agree, it might be good to cite a reference that states this.
In the second point, we see that 'the spending represents only a fraction of its enormous national economy.', and 'the current rate of expenditure is sustainable'. I hope I do not misinterpret these statements when I say they are pro-military spending.
The third reason outlines 'improvements in technology' that have been the result of 'an expensive research program'. Has there been any detriment to Americans, or the world, as a result of these 'improvements'? Here, as in the first two reasons, we see only one side of the story.
Perhaps by looking at the first three reasons, it can be seen that the fourth reason may be more justification of military spending than objective, non-partisan commentary.
I certainly do not wish to get into a discussion about the merits/demerits of the US military budget. Also, I don't wish to suggest that the author(s) of this section had ulterior motives. I would merely suggest that this section may be better suited to another article, or possibly left out in its entirety. It would be rude of me to make such a massive edit without seeking the opinion of other editors.--ThurstonZ 04:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to address what is said in the above paragraphs... Your stated suggestions betray your beliefs and your inability to be objective
Thank you for your comment. Could you please clarify what you said in your last sentence? I am unsure as to exactly what part of my statement was objectionable to you.--ThurstonZ 19:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an inconsistancy in "Budget for 2006" concerning the "Department of Energy" -The table includes a line item for "Department of Energy Defense Activities $17.0 Bil." -Yet the next line says "This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (which is in the Department of Energy budget).
The article claims the US spends 4% of its GDP on the military. 2005 GDP: $12,455,825 Billion. 2005 GAO Military Budget: $420.7 Billion. My calculator shows that's 3.37%. With the '06 Budget and '05 GDP, you get 3.77%. Where does 4% come from?
From the CIA factbook. There is a reference in the article. Mathijs Romans 11:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking back at older revisions, I see budgets from 2004, etc. The present version has only 2007 data. I was trying to look up the past budgets, but now I have to sift through older versions .. why? Could these brought back and either placed here or in separate articles? Thanks! +mt 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a great article that hits dead on regarding the problems with the R&D portion of the budget. This problem has been ongoing for many years. I know this from personal experience and the article states it well. I'd like to know what the best approach to incorporating this information into the page is. Advice? Thanks.--The Founders Intent 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Still waiting......... --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 21:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see how much the US spends on the military bases outside of the US, and what the difference would be if they shut them down and brought everyone home. No other nation has military bases in other countries, except for ones that are colonies, etc, or territories. There seems to be a focus on homeland security, but really, how can that happen when there is hardly enough people to protect the country when they are all overseas?
Roben, 12:07, July 8, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roben.anderson (talk • contribs) 17:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
They may fall under the same secretary, but as seperate services the combined listing betrays the lack of funding for the Navy and especially the Marine Corps and the gross overfunding of the Air Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.192.60 (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined [6] and is less than eight times less than the official military budget of China."
Am I crazy, or is this sentence self-contradictory? zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
There is signifigant military spending outside of the DOD's budgetary purview. Specifially the Department of Energy which maintains the nuclear weapons stockpile as well as other nuclear actives which add up to several billion. Also, the Department of State which finances foreign militaries as well as other programs and actions of strategic military importance, are not counted in the DOD budget. The FBI also has a highly funded counter terrorism operation which is of military importance too. Not to mention various other programs and 053 and 051 functions which add up to almost 800 billion for 2009. Should these other military related activities be included?--Mibs (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Information within this article has expanded outside of the scope of the article's introductory paragraph. Such information should be moved to an appropriate article. Furthermore, any change to the scope of this article should be done via consensus. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This statement makes no sense:
This is nuts. You can't compare military spending in peacetime to the height of WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.15.121 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It didn't fit with Wiki's neutrality, and was also inappropriate for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.163.66 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast wants to add this: "As a total of GDP the U.S. Defense Budget is around 4% of the federal budget, which is less than half of the 8.4% spent on entitlements, that are part of mandatory spending." I don't think that is relevant to the Military budget of the United States, which this article is about. Perhaps if this article were about the entire budget of the United States, or the federal deficit... but it seems like you're trying to make a political point that doesn't belong here. johnpseudo 13:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I’ve come here in response to a request for a third opinion. My real-life job includes analyzing the US defense budget, among other things. Frankly, I think you are both right: including the entitlement comparison statement is harmless, neutral, informative, and not particularly relevant. I think that what RCLC wants to address can be best handled in a way that should be acceptable to Johnpseudo by two changes in the “Military budget and total US federal spending” section.
"Military discretionary spending accounts for roughly X% of the entire United States federal budget and more than half of its discretionary spending (that portion of the total budget that is not appropriated for mandatory spending)." I would also recommend that the pie chart be simplified to reflect only defense spending, other discretionary spending, non-discretionary (entitlement) spending, and debt-servicing. Greater detail is available in the United States federal budget article, which uses the same chart. Are these suggestions amenable to you both? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In the 2008 Fiscal Budget the Department of Defense Budget accounts for 21% of the federal budget, which equals roughly 4% of the national GDP. It is discretionary spending due to the constitutional limitations of military funding and makes up more than half of non-mandatory spending. Total discretionary spending is approx. 1/3 of the federal budget. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years
[outdent] If you don’t mind, I’m removing the article POV tag. It is not relevant to the article as a whole, and the issue at hand appears to me to be more of a content dispute with two different ideas on how to present information in one paragraph. If there is a true POV dispute here, I’m having trouble seeing just what is being pushed by each of you. I like some of what each of you have proposed as changes, so please let me offer a new version of the first two paragraphs that may better address both of your concerns (as I understand them).
Basically, I’ve restructured them to deal with discretionary spending in the one and with the GDP in the other. (I’ve also appended to the latter in braces an extension – that needs further development and footnoting – which provides some context for including references defense spending in terms of GDP.) I would also like to encourage you both to review the existing footnotes as in checking several, I found that they were not always appropriate or in which it was difficult to find the related information. I would also recommend adding a paragraph that shows the impact of adding subsequent supplementary budgets to these amounts. I hope these suggestions help you both further develop this article. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 23:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Of more concern to those trying to get an overall idea of total defense spending is the taxpayer money vs. taxpayer plus money collected not as income tax. For example, Social Security is partly funded through people's paycheck deductions and not fully from income tax. Since I am paying for my Social Security, at least partly, and getting my money back (or part of it), its confusing to see Social Security lumped in with Defense. There is no extra 'Defense' deduction from my paychecks. I do not get money back when the Air Force makes a new $120 million dollar plane. This has the effect of making Social Security look like its a huge part of general taxes, which its not. Defense spending is funded through income tax. Any comments? Perhaps there is another page which I should be discussing this on? Does the pie chart represent all sources of federal money? If so, perhaps this can be explained somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.33.239 (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
At least according to this article from CATO (I know, not the most neutral sources, but still...): http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10263 Cameron Nedland (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hcobb, this article is not the place for discussions of whether the U.S. should spend more or less on its military. PRRfan (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The two big questions are:
A> Why does the USA have a defense budget? (ref to Def Policy of USA) and B> Why does the budget level change over time? (on topic when changes are shown)
The issues I listed were straight out of the CRS report showing how stated policy was in conflict with budget realities. If you've got some reference that states that the CRS is a highly biased source then I'd love to see it. Hcobb (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is it information added by the Heritage Foundation is seen as being a non-reliable source due to perceived bias, yet other editors are using other sources that can as easily be perceived has having their own bias, and thus just as equally non-reliable? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to challange the neutrality of the sources Independent.org and armscontrolcenter.org, each group has an agenda, and their information, whether accurate or not, should not be made to push POV here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
((cite news))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)The subject of this article is the "military budget" of the united states, but some of my recent edits have dealt with the more-general "spending" (as distinct from "budgeted" spending) for "defense" (as distinct from simple military purposes). Am I wrong in thinking that these numbers are relevant? And what are the most reliable sources for "spending" and "budgets"? This article always seems to vary in where it gets its data from year to year. It's frustrating to me that the data is so opaque. It seems like you almost need to be a military budget expert to sort the spin from the facts. johnpseudo 22:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that anyone can look back at an older version of this article, via the history tab, however, it would be nice if we could have a basic history of each year previously given on this article within it. By basic I mean amount spent, percentage of GDP, and percentage of total budget. Of course that may be more difficult then I imagine, as current active editors appear to disagree on what the scope of the article is. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Per the current introductory paragraph, and my humble opinion, expenditures out of the budget of the Department of Defense (and supplement to said budget) are outside of the scope of this article. It has been argued that Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Homeland Security, and certain programs within the Department of Energy and other Departments be included as making up the total military budget. That opinion of the total military budget, in my opinion is erroneous, because not all programs are military, or uniformed for that matter, in nature. For example, the U.S. Border Patrol, or the former USDA division APHIS (at least those that I am familiar with at Port of entry areas) are part of Homeland Security, but aren't military. I can see including expenditures of other uniformed services, including the USCG, to be military expenditures. However, outside of that other expenditures related to national defense would be outside of the scope of this article. Now if this article were to be the National Defense Budget of the United States, that would be different, and thus the topic is what does National Defense encompass, not what does the Military Budget encompass. And if that change is to take place, as this is a major article due to the subject that it covers, I think we need consensus before that change is made.
Furthermore, inclusion of the VA expenditures, would be like saying that the funding of the retirement benefits of former civil service employees of the Department of Education is an education expenditure. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I continue to maintain that the VA is a non-military expenditure. The VA is a non-uniformed service department of the executive branch of the federal government. Furthermore the VA is not part of the Department of Defense, nor does it fall under the Department of Defense during a time of war. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the name of the article needs to be changed to Defense budget of the United States? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Keeping with neutral POV and WP:CRIT, this article should be used to attack present, or past admistrations regarding their defense budgets, or for that matter the size of the budget in general. In a recent edit a sentance was added, with a reference, regarding funding of PMCs. Only including a single sentance without giving due weight to the reasons given by the past administration as to why those companies were contracted gives unde weight to certain opinions regarding those companies.
In the interest of content neutrality I kindly ask that the user who added the content remove it, or provide due weight regarding the reasons given by the government as to why the companies were contracted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Also the insourcing impacts on industrial base issues. http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/MP4_Arsenal_1009.pdf Hcobb (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
A Shrinking Military Budget May Take Neighbors With It by BINYAMIN APPELBAUM published NYT January 6, 2012. A version of this article appeared in print on January 7, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems a little misleading to compare the current US military budget as a percentage of the GPD to that at which it peaked without proper context, as the peak year mentioned, 1944, was both the third year that the US was in WWII, and it was the year before they used the first atomic bomb in history, as well as the fact that there was a large drop in GDP at the end of the war, referenced on Wikipedia as the Recession of 1945. Providing no context when comparing to the relatively low necessity we have for military action today and the significantly higher GDP when adjusted for inflation seems to be somewhat misleading and may be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.114.65 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
2010 Budget request
Percentage of Total
Army
$244.9 billion 31.8% In FY2011 $17,175,805,014.00 dollars was paid to retired Soldiers and Survivors, which is about 6.9% of the total Army Budget
Navy $149.9 billion 23.4% excluding Marine Corps
Marine Corps $29.0 billion 4% Total Budget taken allotted from Department of Navy
Air Force $170.6 billion 22%
Thats in the article. But there is an error with the Navy (because of the Marines I guess?) and the Air Force. The Air Force got 170,6 Billion and 22% - the Navy with her 149.9 Billion got 23.4%? This is 20.7 Billion less and however 1.4% more? The Marines 29,0 Billion and 4% would make the Navy 178.9 Billion (23.4 + 4% = 27.4%?). This however doesn't work if you compare the 170.6 Billion and 22% from the Air Force. I mean the amounts are useful but the percent are wrong. If you take 244.9 / 31.8 you get = 7,701 Billion for 1%. If you take 170.6 / 22.0 you get = 7,754 and if you take 29 / 4 you get 7,250 and 149.9 / 23.4 = 6,4059829059829059829059829059829, 178.9 / 23.4 = 7,645. I think the numbers have been rounded up or down (7,701 - 7,754 and 7,645 are in such a small corridor, only the Marines 7,250 is completely wrong).
I would remove all of the percents or at least the Navy-Percents. That a large amount of money is spent for many many other projects doesn't make this thing easier. Army 31,8% + 23,4% Navy + 22% Airforce makes "only" = 77,2%. Since the values are in the one table from the FY 09/10 and the next chart shows FY 2011 numbers this is really confusing, since the USA got Fiscal Year 2013 already since 44 Days and the FY 2012 (Oct 2011 - Sep 2012) is not mentioned in the charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilon22 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The entire US debt is financed with $200 B in interest. How can defense be more than that amount? http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43904-Historical%20Budget%20Data-2.xls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.172.40 (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
66.161.110.44 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)The source for footnote 8 is unreliable, and irrelevant. First, the amount cited, $3.7 trillion for the cost of the wars, is too high. I would believe $2 trillion all day long, but not $3.7 trillion. The article itself cites $100 billion a year, which is about right, plus the VA costs. Second, the article does not cite any source for costs or display any math anywhere, the $3.7 appears out of thin air, while it talks about total "human cost." It is an obvious anti-war slant, which is fine, but makes it useless for this Wikipedia topic.
This is far from accurate. While it is a widely credited estimate, the U.S. military has not spent this much already on the wars. While the argument is that future costs in interest will cause it to reach these levels, they have yet to actually make it there. It suggests over a trillion in interests and medical will be paid, but has yet to be.
Whether or not we want to argue secret hidden costs, future costs, medical care costs, or whichever costs that they assume or predict to occur, these are not what have actually been spent on the war. I believe a more objective expenditure on the war should be listed, as in the actual cost spent on the war, with the additional estimates provided, but that it should be reworded not to imply that this much has actually been spent already, or directly. The "cost" of the war may be higher, but that isn't the same as what has been spent.
The congressional budget office of the U.S. has stated it has spent approximately 1.6 trillion dollars on both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; "Between September 2001 and June 2014, lawmakers appropriated about $1.6 trillion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other war-related activities. Of that amount, about $1.4 trillion has gone to the Department of Defense, with about $165 billion provided for training indigenous security forces and for funding diplomatic relations and foreign aid for Iraq and Afghanistan."
https://www.cbo.gov/topics/national-security/iraq-and-afghanistan/reports
Everybodydothatdinosaurs (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Citation 14, "Historical Outlays by Agency", returns a 404 error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.201.34 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Citations 6, 8, and 10 also return 404 errors. Liam.Guevara (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In addition to explaining the military budget in contents of components, entity, and programs. An in-depth analysis may be helpful in explaining spending to maintain military bases and presence in other countries. This may provided a global view of the military spending to the reader and provided knowledge of U.S. presence in other countries. Furthermore, in comparison of spending with other countries, the writer might want to expand in explaining the spending of our allies involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. This will allow the reader to understand the spending of various countries involved in the most recent war. Finally, the writer may want to expand on explaining the overall spending of the U.S. in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Including military spending in training non-US military entities in Iraq and Afghanistan and spending on the reconstruction of these countries. This is will allow the reader to understand the context of military spending involves non-U.S. military needs.
Jose a cantu (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Jose Cantu
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Military budget of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Military budget of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The "By Entity" percentages do not make any sense. The Marine Corps is listed as receiving $40.6 billion, which is claimed to be 4% of the total, while Defense Intelligence is listed as receiving $80.1 billion, equaling 3.3% of the total. The other numbers are similarly screwy: the Navy's $149.9 billion is supposedly 23.4% of the total, which implies a 2010 budget request of $640.6 billion, while the Air Force's $170.6 billion is 22%, which implies a 2010 budget request of $775.5 billion.
I don't know what the right numbers are, but this table should probably be stricken until a reliable source can be identified for more recent figures.
144.211.186.253 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Military budget of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A few other users and I have completed a rewrite of this page, with some additional information added to reflect recent events. This proposed page can be found at User:Cameronjbird/sandbox. Let me know if you find any errors in what we believe to be a vast improvement. Cameronjbird (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I think there are lots of more recent sources for this that could replace this primary source.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
"In January 2017, the administration under President Donald Trump announced, through the official White House website, their intentions to "rebuild our military and do everything it can to make sure our veterans get the care they deserve."[2]
References
((cite web))
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(help); More than one of |accessdate=
and |access-date=
specified (help)
The openening concludes with: "By 20 January 2017, when President Trump took office, annual military spending had reached its highest peak ever—$596 billion—representing three times the military spending of all other NATO countries combined."
But the table below the content-list shows the budget of 2010 having $721 billion and others having more as well, therefor I have deleted that sentence. Nevfennas (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Military budget of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Most information on this page comes from 2009 through 2011. Very few references to recent military budget changes other than current administrations fiscal year goals.Liam.Guevara (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The federal waste page makes the claim that the U.S. government is wasting a lot of money on the DoD. Would like to see how DoD spending could be justified, not just one viewpoint. Liam.Guevara (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
JLENS air-balloon claims
"Also, it is important to note that the JLENS air-balloon still does not function properly."
Can we get a source on this? Concidering there are a number of videos available of functional tests, removing until "does not work" proof provided. 18:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)50.242.135.3 (talk)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Military budget of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The second paragraph of "Comparison to other countries" starts : "In 2015, out of its budget of 1.11 trillion, the United States spent $598 billion on military."
But in the table under "Budget by year", the defense budget is 637 bn out of a total budget of 3.97 trillion. Am I missing something? Do point it out if I am.
I also suggest removing the total budget information, unless one includes that for each of the countries being compared to, since the subject is comparison to other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendanDHarris (talk • contribs) 01:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The source for the "budget by year" table is a large document that breaks down federal spending in a bunch of different ways. I wanted to add recent years so I'm looking at the 2020 versions of the source, but I can't find a breakdown that matches the table exactly. I want the recent year numbers to be comparable to the older year numbers. Does anyone know which table or page number I should be using? Or am I better off picking some breakdown - maybe "outlays by function and superfunction", which is the first spending table and within a couple percent of the current numbers - and replacing the entire table with slightly different numbers that I can find? Warren Dew (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 August 2022 and 4 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raygazzo (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Raygazzo (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Ninel, I just reverted your edit, because you added 2023 data to a section that is only about 2017. If you want you could expand the table under the Budget by year section and convert it into a main section (Header 1) instead of a subsection, but please add all of the missing years (FY2016 onward) so there are no gaps. Thanks! Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 16:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)