The US defense budget is around $850 billion.
Depending on the year you look at, the US defense budget is larger than around 7-9 of the next largest budgets from other countries combined.
If you add up all of the countries in the world, the global total is around $2.5 trillion. The United States makes up 1/3rd of that.
The US defense budget also hasn’t been a target for cuts, which is a topic of debate.
So while there’s a lot of headlines being made about other countries increasing their defense spending, the numbers are closer to a rounding error in the US defense budget than a massive global power shift. People scoff at the idea of the US being a global military powerhouse because they don’t like the idea, but the bottom line is that when you look at the numbers there really is a reason that the US military is so important, and it comes down to sheer size and spending.
Also it's not fair to compare the US to Germany. The US compared to the combined EU spending is more of a fair comparison.
US spending is 1/3 of the entire global spending.
US spending is higher than the next ~9 countries’ budgets combined
I only included Germany because that’s what this article is about.
A country with less of this cost disease could probably be competitive with 1/4 the spend or less, especially if they skip big heavy Cold War era tech in favor of faster cheaper stuff like drones and smart munitions. Aircraft carriers and manned fighters look cool but I’m not sure how much they matter anymore.
What I see from the EU is that while they do also have cost disease, it might not be as entrenched in that sector. They also have Russia directly adjacent to them, which motivates people to actually care.
If Mexico were belligerent with a history of imperialism, had nuclear weapons and a huge army, and had just invaded and taken Cuba, we’d be in a similar situation and similarly motivated. As it stands we have a “big beautiful ocean” between us and Russia and do not face a direct threat. The US is almost uninvadeable unless you sterilized it with nukes first, and we have those too.
The US and European defence markets are very different. USA has a larger pie, but it's also very fragmented. More fragmented means more contractors and subs, which keep adding more layers of pricing into the contract. European defence is more consolidated - you have the few big players who get all the contracts, so there's very little room for new entrants to come in but that also means less layers to work with. This makes the final product less expensive compared to the American ones, at the cost of fewer specialized features added in by niche contractors. That's in part due to the nature of the militaries too - the American military will request frequent changes and new features to new battle conditions on the go, to the point of making your product the equivalent of military SAP - very flexible and usable for any battlefield situation, but also very bloated to develop and operate. On the other hand, European military contracts are usually relatively static in comparison, which means that the burden of knowledge acquisition and operating under different situations falls on the operator and not the technology itself. The last bit is also what translates into budgeting - American products are delivered with significant delays and higher costs due to back-and-forth bureaucracy internally, while European products can be delivered sooner if there is a pressure to deliver - like if the customer is a priority customer who has paid significantly upfront (read, Arab militaries).
I would argue that the US military sector is artificially inflated, because it's a significant jobs programme for the huge network of firms, contractors and subcontractors. In a way, it's a military budget that's adjusted for the economy size and not for the actual needs of the military. That lets the US military also fund a ton of whacky pioneering technology that's at the forefront of the innovation (like the internet, or drones, or even social media manipulation), but it also leaks a lot of money through the cracks for ostensibly results that are only marginally better than European countries with comparable militaries such as the UK and France.
That being said, it's much easier and more lucrative to start up in the US than anywhere else, at least till now. Second would be the UK, although with their exclusion from the recent European defence loans programme, that's questionable now. France is increasingly pulling its weight now, and I'm expecting a lot of growth here. The French government has been exceedingly friendly for miltech companies for a while now.
I honestly feel that US military money is thrown around like you said in such a fragmented way, that I can't imagine other countries NOT being an order of magnitude more efficient. It kind of reminds me of our healthcare spending and how much we spend but for such little ROI compared to other developed countries.
I can. I imagine that, while the US military bureaucracy is horrible, it is not uniquely horrible. Other countries have bureaucracies, too, and they are not an order of magnitude better than the US ones.
Or so I imagine. I confess that I have no first-hand experience with non-US military R&D bureaucracies.
Why do people believe it would it be an economically good decision to buy land and build houses in Germany, a place with negative GDP, no long term energy independence solution except for returning to coal, sharp curtailments on basic free speech, press, and assembly, and a massive military build-up which will require high levels of debt, cutting social spending, or both?
Is it more about a question of national feeling and patriotism and the details aren't as important as the national pride, or is there an underlying economic analysis? It's also possible that Germany will simply deindustrialize, financialize, do debt-based stimulus, and accelerate the pace of mass migration further, which would indeed be good for home prices for remote owners who continue to live abroad.
Free speech is different in Germany than the US, that doesn't mean we don't have free speech in Germany. The US doesn't have the one and only true definition of free speech. And right now Trump is assaulting free speech in the US, so those lectures from Vance and others are just blatant, partisan rethoric.
We're not returning to coal. The economy could be better, but it's not as terrible as you imply.
Germany returning to coal would be a bitter pill to swallow, but insisting that Germany will remain competitive despite much higher energy costs which only get worse with scale by saying "it's not that bad" is not convincing.
Free speech, free press, and free assembly is under another round of attacks many places, including Germany, The United States, Russia, Israel, and Turkey, among others. Some are relatively better than others and some had very little left to fall, but all are in absolute decline.
As I'm in favor of free speech as a universal value and not an apologist for anyone's domestic authoritarianism, I don't consider the hypocrisy of the speaker to be a good justification to sweep aside mutually unflattering facts about state policy.
Impossible. Net zero was put at constitutional level to get the necessary votes from the greens. (And they were losing that voting power in the elected congress)
But, that is bad news for freedom if everybody else, so.
Germany seems like a better country to live in for most people. Plus, affordable Healthcare system and public education system.
Are you saying FIRE is teutonphobic and the report is false, that those were all irish nazis engaging in terrorist plots, or that immigrants should have fewer rights to speech than citizens?
So while the left and center of the US largely views this whole saga as a catastrophic loss of the US brand and foreign policy aims, this kind of rearmament is exactly what Trump promised his base he'd make happen.
"We have a lot of leverage, and even if we don't, then we don't have to pay to be the worlds police" - is largely how I (also a european) have seen Trumps actions.
The "issue", is that this is a populist take.
It's weirdly not in Americas interest to take that stance, because they are a defacto world government with the amount of soft power they are able to exert, militarily and in trade.
So, the GP is quite right, people are waking up to the idea that this soft power was running kinda deep and we shouldn't just allow ourselves to get soft too.
Just like an insurance company will find a way not to pay: the US may never have actually come to the aid of Europe; and nobody thought about that, they just accepted most of what the US was asking in the hope that they would.
The lesson will be painful in the short-term, but I'm also hopeful that we take it seriously and start investing in ourselves.
If they can't trust us not to break our previous promises, why in the world would they trust us with their national security-critical business?
You really expect EU to stay friendly with the US when it is an active threat to its integrity?
We do not have to protect you forever, and us forcing you to step up military spending to comply with the UN mandates as there is an active war on your doorstep? Ensuring equal tarrifs from both sides?
I don't know why the US taking itself off massively taxing it's citizens and increasing government revenue through tarrifs, is called a "Trade war".
People seem to be so reliant on the US that the slightest sign that we aren't going to continue to hand out everything, people start getting hysterical.
Annexation of Greenland. It is part of Denmark as of now, even if it is not exactly a part of EU. The fact that you don't even seem to know that shows that you sre either arguing in bad faith or is ill informed.
> We do not have to protect you forever
Then leave. This arrangement benefits primarily the US.
> I don't know why the US taking itself off massively taxing it's citizens and increasing government revenue through tarrifs, is called a "Trade war".
You don't seem to understand how tariffs work either. Honestly, having this conversation with you is a waste of time.
> People seem to be so reliant on the US
Pehaps not anymore. We shall see. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
The thing is that I never expected the US to just willingly throw away what I (and many others) perceived to be its actual greatest source of strength. The US had built, along with its impressive military, an equally impressive web of friendly nations that allowed it to project its power to a degree that was impossible to match. Even in a world where China kept rising, they would have trouble to compete with the US in this field, because the window of opportunity to build this was like 70 years ago.
China was trying for the next best thing, wooing countries in Africa and Latin America to slowly build a web of friendly nations of its own. Not the same, if you ask me.
That the US would freely squander all their multi-decades investments in a matter of months was unthinkable.
I personally enjoy what is happening. As someone that lives in an EU country, I thought the EU needed this kind of nudge to further integrate, and the US influence always irked me. I am cautiously optimistic for the next few years here.
It's a catastrophic loss of influence. It's a good thing for Europe but terrible for the US. I think that Trump will end up fulfilling his promise is co-incidental. Trump's a lose cannon who's alienated all of America's friends, that he achieved some relatively minor goal is like being proud of losing weight because you have cancer.
Europe has a chance here to become a political superpower, strongly eroding the US centric world view and having influence though something other than brute force of money or military power, which is what China and US are trying to project.
Also, military spending can be reduced by reducing military costs in the USA. Wait until DOGE gets it's scalpel on the Pentagon's budget: likely much can be saved there.
Remember Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex"
https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=military+i...
The defense industry has run rampant since long before Eisenhower's presidency. Trump is likely to make some serious cuts in the defense budget, deeper than we've seen in decades.
This suggests a cautious, surgical approach. So far DOGE seems to be wielding a chainsaw instead.
Also, if you are referring to Hitler's and Napoleon's failed campaigns on Russia, it's important to mention that those were fighting wars of aggression on multiple fronts against their European neighbors. It was not a united EU propping up defenses against real threats.
I wish that the USA did better on taking care of people, (because it sucks right now) but some on the left act as if there are no consequences to deciding to implement these things.
In my experience working with some former European entrepreneurs, the startup problem isn’t really directly related to anything about social democracy or safety nets or even taxes.
They talked about how difficult, painful, and risky it was for them to start and operate a company at every turn. Even things like bankruptcy and allowing founders to move on with their lives if their startup fails, which we take for granted here, are not a given in European countries.
It’s not just the government to blame. The private banking and even societal norms are very different in ways that we don’t even consider in the United States.
The US is very friendly to funding and building startups. I didn’t appreciate it until talking to ex-founders from various European countries as well as many founders here who explicitly left EU countries for America because they wanted to start a company.
I agree that it's not as simple as "regulation" and "taxes"- it's more fundamental than that.
Which is why I think it'll so so hard for the USA to implement a fair social health care system, even though it needs one so badly.
Elitism / classism might be part the reason why social democracy is possible- if you believe that there are simply a group of people who need help in society you might be more willing to give to them.
If everyone is completely equal it might seem like no one actually deserves anything "more" than anyone else.
It's most likely an artifact of smaller, less liquid capital pools and the fact that the US is a really easy large market to tap into, leading to European startups investing into the US market in preference to their own.
If the country were any bigger the domestic market becomes the defacto, limiting growth....
So 99% of them probably don't care about this particular thing. They care about abortion, or "corruption", or welfare queens, or something else.
They have no idea the entire point of this exercise is to gut our public infrastructure so they can give hand-outs to their cronies companies to do the exact same job, but more expensive.
Most Americans who voted for this (and to some extent their representatives) genuinely and seriously do not think about this matter with any depth and don’t care about the knock-on effects one bit.
They lack any desire to know if the world would be screwed or not by US actions. They really just don’t care.
They (think that they) want isolationism, less trade, less immigration, less interacting with others.
This isn’t hubris — it’s simply ignorance.