Knoema.com - National Defense http://knoema.de 2022-05-06T12:34:48Z /favicon.png Knoema ist ihre persönliche Wissensdatenbank Is NATO the Financial Burden of the US? //knoema.de/larytbg/is-nato-the-financial-burden-of-the-us 2022-05-06T12:34:48Z Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Is NATO the Financial Burden of the US?

In July, after the NATO summit in Brussels, US President Donald Trump tweeted that "the United States is spending far more on NATO than any other country. This is not fair, nor is it acceptable." But, is the US spending more on NATO than other members? And, if so, is the US spending level unfair relative to that which the US—and the other 28 members—have agreed? Let's look at the data. Measure 1: Defense Expenditures. In 2018,* the US will spend an estimated $706 billion on defense globally. The US defense budget represents US priorities and spending globally and not money spent for or on behalf of NATO or for the mutual defense of the alliance members. NATO-Europe is expected to spend $286 billion on defense in 2018.Personnel expenditures constitute the largest single category of anticipated US defense expenditures in 2018 (42.5%)—which includes pensions paid to retirees—followed by equipment and related R&D (26.8%).Defense infrastructure makes up only 1.3 percent of total US defense expenditures in 2018, down from 3.1 percent 2011. Measure 2: Share of GDP. In 2014, NATO members agreed as a signal of political will and validation of the alliance to increase defense expenditures to at least two percent of GDP by 2024. According to 2018 estimates, by this measure a few countries have already met the commitment while other countries are still working up to the 2024 standard: the US, 3.5 percent; Greece, 2.3 percent; Estonia, 2.1 percent, and the UK, 2.1 percent. Measure 3: Contribution to the NATO Common Funding. Based on an agreed GDP-based cost sharing formula, the largest share of direct funding of NATO's $2.5 billion Common Fund by the 29-member alliance** is from the largest economy: the United States. In 2017, the US contribution made up 22 percent of NATO's common fund, or about $550 million. Europe's total contribution was $1.8 billion. Learn more about direct funding to NATO here. If the US President wants to argue in favor of alliance members more rapidly reaching a 2 percent minimum in defense spending in light of the threats posed to global security by non-alliance actors, that policy argument would supersede the data used herein to examine current commitments of NATO members. *Figures for 2017 and 2018 are estimates. The NATO Europe and NATO total aggregates for 2017 include Montenegro, which became an ally member on 5 June 2017.** The Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries dataset does not include Iceland. 

Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Global Nuclear Weapons Inventory: Good and Bad News for Peace //knoema.de/ptsivab/global-nuclear-weapons-inventory-good-and-bad-news-for-peace 2021-08-04T10:50:22Z Misha Gusev knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1000560
Global Nuclear Weapons Inventory: Good and Bad News for Peace

(14 June 2021) According to the latest report by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), due to the USA and Russia dismantling retired warheads, the global nuclear warheads inventory decreased by 320 units between Jan. 1, 2020 and Jan. 1, 2021, continuing an overall decline in global stock. And this is a good news. The bad news is that at the beginning of 2021 the number of deployed warheads (warheads placed on missiles or located on bases with operational forces) increased for the first time since 2017.  Over the course of the last year the US and Russia increased the number of deployed warheads by 50 and 55 units, respectively. In addition, other nuclear powers, led by China, have continued to increase their nuclear arsenals even as the US and Russia reduce theirs. Collectively, China, the UK, North Korea, India, and Pakistan increased their inventory of nuclear warheads by 61 units from the start of 2020 to the start of 2021. The other two countries that possess nuclear weapons, France and Israel, maintained previous inventory levels. With 350 warheads, China now ranks third among nuclear powers, having surpassed France in 2020.   Note:  The data on this page represents all countries that have nuclear weapons.

Misha Gusev knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1000560
A Decade of Deteriorating Global Peace //knoema.de/womqiu/a-decade-of-deteriorating-global-peace 2021-07-02T13:41:18Z Misha Gusev knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1000560
A Decade of Deteriorating Global Peace

(30 June 2021) While it’s true that major powers aren’t engaging in the kind of devastating large-scale wars that rocked the first half of the 20th century,  data from the Institute for Economics and Peace shows that the state of global peace is deteriorating. According to the Institute's 2021 Global Peace Index report, between 2012 and 2021 the peace index score deteriorated in 87 countries (out of 158 for which 2012-2021 data is available), including the three major military powers: the US, Russia, and China. Ongoing militarization is the main factor in the major military powers' worsening scores.Over the past seven years, the United States has become one of the fastest militarizing countries, registering the third-largest change in militarization score from 2014 to 2021 after the UAE and Eritrea. China and Russia are 70th and 81st, respectively, in change in militarization over the same time period.Although the overall change in the global peace index from 2020 is relatively small, only .07%, the report notes that 2021 is the ninth out of the past thirteen years to register a net decline in global peacefulness. The Global Peace Index Report measures global peacefulness based on 23 indicators grouped into three domains: Societal Safety and Security, Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict, and Militarization. A lower score indicates a greater degree of peacefulness, while a higher score indicates less peaceful conditions.

Misha Gusev knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1000560
Nigeria: Armed Conflicts, Military Spending, and the Economic Context //knoema.de/yfkakle/nigeria-armed-conflicts-military-spending-and-the-economic-context 2021-06-15T07:55:59Z Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Nigeria: Armed Conflicts, Military Spending, and the Economic Context

During the mid-to-late 2000s, Nigeria struggled to reign in the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, better known simply as MEND. MEND is a militant group based in the southwest of Nigeria in the Niger Delta, Nigeria's primary onshore oil production region.  The group sought increased economic benefits for residents of the Niger Delta from the country's oil production and reparations for destruction of the environment by foreign oil companies. The group's guerrilla warfare tactics and deadly bombings were only part of the reason it was so potent; the group also caused severe economic losses by disrupting or shutting in oil and gas production infrastructure and kidnapping foreign oil workers. A second violent group was developing its identity and reach during this same period: Boko Haram. Much of the world learned of the Boko Haram terrorist group after it kidnapped 276 school girls from their dormitory in the Nigerian town of Chibok in April 2014, but for years it has grown in size and capability. Formally established in the early 2000s, this Islamic extremist group gained new momentum and potency in the period 2009-2010 when it started an armed rebellion against the government of Nigeria.  Today both groups have contributed to escalating levels of violence throughout Nigeria, although many of the claims of responsibility by purported members of MEND are questionable. In 2014, Nigeria experienced a dramatic increase in fatalities, reaching about 11,000 deaths, according to ACLED estimates. In late January 2015, after the largest massacre by Boko Haram in Baga (1,700-2,000 killed), a coalition of military forces from Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and Niger began a counter-insurgency campaign against the group. By summer, it was believed that the Nigerian military had retaken most of the areas previously controlled by Boko Haram in the northeastern area of the country, however, the first quarter death toll still reached 6,109 fatalities. Violence in Nigeria must be examined in the context of the socioeconomic conditions that have only accentuated ethnic, religious, and geographic divisions in the country. Nigeria is Africa’s largest economy as well as its largest oil producer. Yet, astonishing levels of corruption have left it lagging in basic development and infrastructure in most of the country.Egypt has a population roughly half the size of Nigeria's and yet it has nearly five times the installed power generation capacity, according to data from the International Energy Agency and the World Bank.According to the IMF's 2015 World Economic Outlook, Nigeria also has the lowest total government expenditure as a percent of GDP in the world at only 10.58 percent. The average in Sub-Saharan Africa is 22.4 percent with some countries like Kenya and South Africa spending upwards of 30 percent or more of GDP. Nigeria, for all its violence, lags not only in socioeconomic-related spending, but also in military expenditures.Since 2009 when MEND signed an amnesty agreement with the Government of Nigeria, Nigeria has maintained military expenditures of about 370-380 billion naira, or 2.2-2.3 billion US dollars. In contrast, Algeria - another large African oil and gas producer with a GDP (PPP) about half the size of Nigeria's - spent $11.9B in 2014 on its military.Steady economic growth has also reduced Nigeria's military expenditure relative to GDP from 0.9 percent in 2009 to 0.4 percent in 2014. Nigeria now ranks 39th among African countries by military expenditures as a percent of GDP.  Sources: Armed Conflict Location and Event Dataset (ACLED) African Data (1997-2016)  SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, 1988-2016, Global Firepower, IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO), October 2017 , EIA International Energy Statistics, The World Bank World Development Indicators

Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Military Expenditures Summary //knoema.de/cmbynhf/military-expenditures-summary 2021-03-23T07:18:41Z Misha Gusev knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1000560
Military Expenditures Summary

Misha Gusev knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1000560
The 2019 Global Peace Index //knoema.de/qnlwwie/the-2019-global-peace-index 2019-11-12T11:31:03Z Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
The 2019 Global Peace Index

The 2017 Global Peace Index reflects the reality of war and peace today with Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq ranking as the least peaceful countries of the 161 evaluated for the index. The United States experienced the greatest decline in the index since last year, slipping 11 places to rank 114th, directly following Armenia and Rwanda and preceding El Salvador and China.But, what’s in the index? The Global Peace Index is comprised of 23 indicators grouped into three broad themes: the level of safety and security in a society, the number of international and domestic conflicts, and the degree of militarization. In the US case, the deterioration of its score is attributable to an increasing homicide rate and the number of terrorist attacks and mass shootings last year.Nearly 60 percent of the Index countries improved their scores in the 2017 edition, with Europe remaining the world’s most peaceful region. Only Canada and Australia also made the top 10.Learn more about the performance of specific countries on each of the three components of the index: ongoing domestic and international conflict; societal safety and security; and militarization.

Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Military expenditure (% of GDP) //knoema.de/diuszu/military-expenditure-of-gdp 2019-08-02T12:06:50Z Eldar Khattatov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1000520
Military expenditure (% of GDP)

Eldar Khattatov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1000520
Tech Companies Pursuing Defense Contracts, Employees Hesitant //knoema.de/oayhccd/tech-companies-pursuing-defense-contracts-employees-hesitant 2019-03-06T14:21:24Z Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Tech Companies Pursuing Defense Contracts, Employees Hesitant

  US tech companies are keeping lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts in their sights as indicated by growing attendance at DoD events. This is unsurprising given the rapid growth of AI technology—which the DoD wants to use in predictive maintenance, process automation, and humanitarian assistance—and the DoD’s long-maintained reliance on private contractors. According to the US Federal Procurement Data System, in 2017, DoD obligated $321 billion to contractors, which is more than all other government agencies combined. Contract obligations of the department account for 43 percent of total national defense expenditures and 7 percent of total federal government expenditures, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. Tech company employees are less enthusiastic about participating in the development of military tech, rejecting the idea that these contracts help to make the world a better place. Statements and actions by corporate execs, however, show companies are less willing than their employees to walk away from DoD.Last week, Microsoft employees demanded their executives, Brad Smith and Satya Nadella, cancel the $480 million contract the company won in November 2018 with the US Army to develop an Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS). [Appears the demands failed.] Microsoft's CEO defended the company’s military contract, arguing that Microsoft technologies help to protect freedoms. The assertion is not surprising given Microsoft's history contracting with the US military. According to the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, which tracks US federal funds obligated on contracts, Microsoft was the seventh largest contractor of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) in 2017; DISA in turn maintains the third highest contract value among defense agencies.Apparently Google employees take a similar view to peers at Microsoft and were more successful. Last year, employees protested the company's contract with the US Pentagon to apply AI to identify potential drone targets from satellite images and Google dropped the contract. 

Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Sales value of Arms producing Companies in US //knoema.de/kcfgdzc/sales-value-of-arms-producing-companies-in-us 2019-01-11T12:18:52Z Nematullah Khan knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1975840
Sales value of Arms producing Companies in US

Lockheed Martin, based in U.S. state of Maryland, is world’s largest arms company in terms of sales value. The company manufactures aircraft, radar systems, drones and even components for spacecraft for the US military and foreign states. Its most famous products include the F-16 fighter plane and the Hercules transport plane. The Company sold US$ 44.9 billion of arms in 2017. Boeing, based in US, is world’s second largest arms company. The company is famous for its line of passenger aircrafts. The Boeing made US$ 26.9 billion of arms sales in 2017. Raytheon is world’s fourth largest and third largest in U.S. is primary produces missiles and weapons systems for aircraft and naval vessels. The sales value of arms was US$ 23.8 billion in 2017, whereas total sales was at US$ 25.3 billion.

Nematullah Khan knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1975840
Global Firepower - 2016 | Data and Charts //knoema.de/wxzygqd/global-firepower-2016-data-and-charts 2018-12-19T13:18:40Z Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Global Firepower - 2016 | Data and Charts

Global Firepower (GFP) provides a unique analytical display of data concerning today's world military powers. Over 100 world powers are considering in the ranking which allows for a broad spectrum of comparisons to be achieved concerning relative military strengths. The Global Firepower ranking is based strictly on each nations potential conventional war-making capabilities across land, sea and air. The nuclear capability is not taken into account. The final ranking also incorporates values related to resources, finances and geography. The Global Firepower ranking is based on a formula utilizing over fifty different factors, compiled and measured against each nation. Bonuses (ex: low oil consumption) and penalties (ex: high oil consumption) are applied to further refine the list. The finalized GFP value is recognized as the "Power Index"  which supplies a nation its respective positioning in the rankings.  Power Index & Country Ranks       Man Power      Land Systems      Air Power      Naval Strength      Compare Countries

Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
The World's Nuclear Forces //knoema.de/dlawtsb/the-world-s-nuclear-forces 2018-01-29T08:12:07Z Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
The World's Nuclear Forces

Nine countries in the world are nuclear-capable: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. As of January 2017, these nuclear powers possessed approximately 14,935 nuclear weapons, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).Almost 40 percent of total nuclear forces are warheads in central storage that would require some preparation to deploy, such as transportation and loading onto launchers.SIPRI estimates that 27.8 percent of total nuclear forces are warheads placed on missiles or located on bases with operational forces. Russia and the US possess the largest nuclear warhead arsenals in combat readiness, with 1,950 and 1,800 weapons, respectively. Even as the total global nuclear weapons arsenal has gradually decreased, some of the nuclear nine continue to build their nuclear potential. The global stockpile of nuclear weapons has decreased almost fourfold since 1986 when the volume of these weapons reached a peak of about 65,000 units.China, India, and Pakistan have each added 10 nuclear warheads to their arsenals during 2017. In addition, US President Donald Trump said in July that he wants to achieve a huge increase in nuclear capability of the United States. According to research estimates, half of the US' existing weapons stock contains enough power to destroy the population of more than a dozen countries.During 2017, North Korea also performed nuclear tests in violation of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty of 1996, which banned nuclear explosions. 

Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
The Cost Of Violence //knoema.de/fxsoqee/the-cost-of-violence 2017-06-22T10:56:22Z Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
The Cost Of Violence

Escalating civil strife and the consequent refugee crisis have been among the key drivers in increasing the cost of global violence containment*, according to the 2016 Global Peace Index published by the global think-tank, the Institute for Economics and Peace. The total economic impact of violence last year reached US$14.3 trillion, or 13.4% of global GDP. That’s equivalent to the combined economies of Canada, France, Germany, Spain and the UK. Large increases in violence costs have occurred in deaths from internal conflict, IDP and refugee related costs, UN peacekeeping costs and GDP losses from conflict. Excluding North Korea, the ten countries with the largest violence containment expenditure as a percentage of GDP are in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and MENA. Seven of these countries are involved in some form of civil conflict, which has become a major driver of violence containment expenditure in recent years. In absolute terms, the countries with the largest violence containment expenditure are the United States, China, Russia, India and Brazil. These countries account for 54 per cent of total violence containment expenditure while also accounting for 45 per cent of world GDP and 46 per cent of the world’s population. See also: Global Peace Index, 2017 * Violence containment is the economic activity related to the consequences or prevention of violence where the violence is directed against people or property. Source: Global Peace Index (GPI), 2017

Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
FSU Countries: Military Strength Magnifies Value of NATO //knoema.de/dopfhqd/fsu-countries-military-strength-magnifies-value-of-nato 2015-08-24T16:59:20Z Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
FSU Countries: Military Strength Magnifies Value of NATO

The Global Firepower database published earlier this year provides an interesting perspective on the relative military strength of the former-Soviet Union (FSU) member states bordering Russia as compared to Russia. The contrast is so sharp that any of the FSU countries would almost certainly be unable to defend themselves from Russian military advancement without the direct involvement of NATO or other allied forces.  The Baltic States, Georgia, and Ukraine combined spend fifteen times less on defense than does Russia. While military expenditures offer only a simplistic cross-country comparison - obscuring differences such as procurement systems and how related industries are supported by each government - the data in this case does show a correlation with smaller armed forces and limited resources. For example, the active military manpower of the Baltic States - comprised of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania - is 25 times less than Russia's, and the States have no tanks (vs 15,400 in Russia), no fighter jets or other interceptors, and only small coastal Naval defense crafts.  Based on recent history and official statements, NATO has a standing, unambiguous readiness to assist and thereby almost certainly influences Russia's offensive military plans. Compared to joint NATO forces, the Russian army of today is considerably weaker, even with allies from the Collective Security Treaty Organization.  Sources: Global Firepower, 2015, SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, 1988-2014

Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
NATO: World-Leading Spending Enabling Air, Naval Power //knoema.de/vmvddfg/nato-world-leading-spending-enabling-air-naval-power 2015-08-20T16:59:41Z Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
NATO: World-Leading Spending Enabling Air, Naval Power

With the international community still assessing the implications of NATO's first deployment test of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) in June in western Poland, the question becomes: how does NATO rank among other military alliances worldwide?  For the purposes of the June exercise, 2,100 soldiers and over 300 vehicles were deployed to Poland within four days, using six trains, 16 flights, and 14 convoys, according to western press reports. In the event of a real crisis, however, the necessary approval of all 28 NATO members to deploy the VJTF would potentially lengthen the response time. Overall, military expenditures of NATO countries are 62 percent higher than the military spending of all other countries combined, according to a report from Global Fire Power. NATO and Major non-NATO Allies have developed more attack air forces and naval power than the rest of the world combined. NATO and its closest allies also have more tanks, artillery, and manpower than the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Collective Security Treaty, including China. Select the indicator to compare NATO forces to other military alliances and the "rest of the world." Source: Global Firepower, April 2015. For the country membership details on referenced groups, refer to the legend at the bottom of the page.

Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Global Firepower 2015 //knoema.de/ssmsxvd/global-firepower-2015 2015-07-11T10:50:12Z Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Global Firepower 2015

Select the indicator and choose countries from the ranking lists to compare the countries Power Index & Country Ranks      Man Power      Land Systems       Air Power      Naval Strength      Compare Countries

Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Recent Trends in World Military Expenditures //knoema.de/dspeied/recent-trends-in-world-military-expenditures 2015-04-28T13:27:45Z Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
Recent Trends in World Military Expenditures

World military expenditure totalled $1.8 trillion in 2014, a fall of 0.4 per cent in real terms since 2013, according to figures released by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in the latest update of its military expenditure database. World military spending, while falling for the third year in a row, has levelled off as reductions in the United States and Western Europe were largely matched by increases in Asia and Oceania, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Africa. US military spending fell by 40 bln dollar (in constant 2011 prices) as part of ongoing budget deficit reduction measures; spending has now fallen by 20 per cent since its peak in 2010. The next three highest spenders — China, Russia and Saudi Arabia — have all substantially increased their military expenditures, with Saudi Arabia’s increase of 17 per cent making it the fastest increase of any of the top 15 spenders worldwide. In 2014, for the first time in history, Saudi Arabia has become world's top country in the terms of military spending per capita ($2747 nominal US dollars). The SIPRI Military Expenditure Database contains consistent time series on the military spending of 171 countries since 1988. Data for each country is shown in the various formats: nominal and real US Dollars military expenditure, expenditure as a shares of country GDP and overall government spending and on the per capita basis. Select the metric on the data card gadget to display the interactive map and country ranking. Choose the country on the map to see the trends on the graph Source: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, 1988-2014

Alex Kulikov knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1847910
World Military Strengths, 2011 //knoema.de/igbowzf/world-military-strengths-2011 2012-10-16T14:13:24Z Balaji S knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1000220
World Military Strengths, 2011

Balaji S knoema.de://knoema.de/user/1000220