Jump to content

Länders försvarsbudget

Recommended Posts

Någon som vet var man kan hitta statistik över förändringar i länders försvarsbudgetar (stavning?) de senaste 10 eller 20 åren?


I och med att svenska Försvarsmakten förändrats drastiskt de senaste åren skulle det vara ganska intressant att få en vink om vad som händer i omvärlden.


Tack på förhand :lol:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forumsledning



sammanställning över militära utgifter i tabell



Några snabba jmf


Sverige: $4.395 billion (FY01) 2.1% av BNP (FY01)

Finland: $1.8 billion (FY98/99) 2% av BNP (FY98/99)

Norge: $3.113 billion (FY98/99) 2.13% av BNP (2002)

Danmark: $2.47 billion (FY99/00) 1.4% av BNP (FY99/00)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tanke schön Henke. :lol:


Hittade på den här sidan en hel del smaskig statistik...





...och en hyfsat bra och kortfattad text om läget generellt, saxad från ovannämnd sida:



"World military expenditure, which has been increasing since 1998, accelerated sharply in 2002, increasing by 6% in real terms to $794 billion in current prices, accounting for 2.5% of world GDP, and $128 per capita.a The current level of world military expenditure is 14 per cent higher in real terms than it was at the post-cold war low of 1998, but is still 16 per cent below the level of 1988, when world military expenditure was close to its cold war peak.


The increase in 2002 is dominated by a 10% real terms increase by the USA, accounting for almost three quarters of the global increase, in response to the events of September 11 2001, and to cement US global military dominance. Further substantial increases are planned up to 2009. Furthermore, the budgets for fiscal year (FY) 2003 and FY2004 do not include the cost of the war in Iraq, for which an additional $80 billion has so far been appropriated. A stated goal of the increased spending is to pursue the ‘transformation’ of the US armed forces to better meet the challenges of warfare in the 21st century. This has been questioned, however, given the continuation of a large number of ‘legacy’ systems designed during the cold war.


The US now accounts for 43% of world military expenditure, when currencies are converted at market exchange rates (MERs). The top 5 spenders: the USA, Japan, the UK., France and China, account for 62% of the world total, and the top 15 account for 82%. These comparisons depend strongly on the choice of MER to convert other currencies to US dollars. If purchasing power parity (PPP) rates, which reflect the actual volume of goods and services that can be purchased in each country with its currency, are used the US remains the top spender by far, but the next three are then China, India and Russia. This is because MERs tend to undervalue the purchasing power of money in developing countries and economies in transition. However, lack of reliable PPP data means that SIPRI has chosen to use MERs to convert all currencies to US dollars.


There are marked regional disparities in the share of economic resources devoted to military expenditure (the ‘defence burden’). In 2001, the most recent year for which data is available, the Middle East spent an estimated 6.3% of GDP on the military compared to a global average of 2.3%, while at the other end, Latin America spent only 1.3% and Asia and Oceania 1.6%. North America at 3%, and Central and Eastern Europe at 2.7%, were somewhat above the average, while Africa at 2.1% and Western Europe at 1.9% were slightly below.


While the ‘war on terrorism’ is a major factor in the increase in US military expenditure, this has not been the case elsewhere, except for a handful of countries, such as Israel and Colombia, which face specific internal conflicts. In particular, military expenditure in Western Europe remained flat in 2002, with no substantial increases in any major country there. On the other hand, the UK and France have announced substantial increases from 2003, some of this linked to developing ‘network-centric’ warfare which is seen as important in the ‘war on terrorism’. However these increases are not matched by most other countries in the region, including Germany which has frozen military expenditure in nominal terms until 2006.


Other major spenders increased military expenditure in 2002 for a variety of reasons including Russia, China and India. While Russia is a strong supporter of the ‘war on terrorism’, to which it links its conflict in Chechnya, its 12% real terms military spending increase in 2002 relates to longer-term objectives that have seen spending rise since 1998, namely military reform and the maintenance of defence technological capability in Russian industry. China increased military spending by 18% in real terms in 2002, in pursuit of military reform and to strengthen its position as a regional and global power. India’s 9% real terms increase is the result both of heightened tension with Pakistan and regional power ambitions, where it is in competition with China. These increases are the main cause of modest regional increases in East Asia, South Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe.


Elsewhere, most countries in the Middle East increased military spending due to heightened tension in the region over Iraq and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. African military spending rose slightly, with armed forces modernization tending to become a more important driver than conflict in most cases. In South America, economic difficulties in Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela are expected to offset increases in Colombia because of the escalation of the civil war there, with budgets showing a slight overall regional fall. Furthermore, economic problems are likely to lead to military spending falling below budget in some cases. In the Balkans, some countries appear to be reducing military spending as the region gradually returns to normality, while prospective NATO members in Central and Eastern Europe have been increasing military spending in pursuit of their candidacies, and to promote NATO-interoperability.


Planned increases by the USA are likely to ensure a continuing rise in world military expenditure over the next few years, with other major powers also seeming inclined to raise spending to try to keep pace. However, increases in most parts of the world are likely to remain on a smaller scale than those in the US."






Överlåter slutsatser och eftertankar till forumets experter. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vorre intressant och se hur starkt försvars EU ahr i jämnförelse med USA.

EU har inget försvar. EU:s medlemsländer har däremot det. Ovan har du alla länkar och information tillgänglig för att jämföra europeiska länders militära förmåga med den amerikanska. Håll till godo.




Edit: Tycker du kan börja tänka över dina frågor både en och två gånger innan du postar dem, och inte minst stavningen.

Edited by Froddan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EU har i dagsläget inte någon nämvärd militär kapacitet, och än mindre någon uttalad vilja hur man skulle använda en sådan förmåga. Än så länge diskuterar man gemensam Säkerhetspolitik. Så det är inte en rättvist att gämföra USA med EU.


Närmasta militära förband skulle kunna vara Eurocorps som består av Franska och Tyska förband. Om jag inte missminner mig så skulle de vara på divisions nivå.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...