Nope, had that wrong. Since the Korean war, U.S. defense spending has been
fairly flat. The greatest spending (since Korea) was 8.5% GNP during Kennedy,
otherwise it's been about 5% (as I thought). Defense comprises (approx.) 25%
of the current budget (total). Currently, the defense budget is about 260
billion dollars. My previous USSR guess was off as well. At the height of the
Cold War, the USSR spent about 14% GNP on defense. Other
NATO nations spent about 3-4% GNP during the Cold War (70s-80s) and
probably a bit less now. During WW2, most nations spent 30-50% GNP on
defense. Another interesting tidbit is that, as a rule of thumb, 30% of the
production cost of a weapon system (ship, plane, etc.) is the development
cost.
> At 03:35 PM 5/5/97 PDT, you wrote:
That's mostly a lot of hooey if you ask me. Russia NEVER spent that much (as a
% of GNP) on defense. Just think about it, it's impossible. They didn't spend
that much during WW2. Also, as I said, the U.S. has spent about 5% GNP since
Korea. We've never dipped to 2%. Perceptions of Carter were certainly bad but
in reality his military spending was about the same as Reagan's, as a% of GNP,
although more in actual dollars. The U.S. Navy had more ships at the end of
Carter's last term than at the end of Reagan's. One big thing that did happen
under Reagan (that had nothing to do with him) was that the military underwent
a reform. Under Carter, the military was still suffering the after effects of
Vietnam whereas it got its sh** together again under Reagan (as seen in Desert
Storm).
Paul
> At 11:24 PM 5/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
> I have a point, please bear with me...
> Every time they thought they were ready, something would happen here to
If you want a little fact to dispute the 95% then note that since 1992 Russian
military spending has only declined about 45% (now at about 85 billion). If it
were at 95% GNP than it would STILL be at about 55% GNP. We know that's not
true. Of course I guess it's possible for a VERY short period Russian spending
went sky high but I doubt even that. An economic move of that magnatiude could
not have been hidden.
Paul
> At 11:24 PM 5/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
> Every time they thought they were ready, something would happen here to
> Paul Calvi wrote:
At
> the height of the Cold War, the USSR spent about 14% GNP on defense.
Other
> NATO nations spent about 3-4% GNP during the Cold War (70s-80s) and
I have a point, please bear with me...
It seams just before the end of the "cold war", there was this russian general
who defected to the U.S. He told about several things, one of which was the
russian spending. He said at the END, they were spending 98%GNP on all
military projects only. And a reporter discusing it, at the time, said: the
U.S was spending only 2%GNP....It seems that the U.S, and Russia was spending
about the same amount in actual money.
It seems that all through the cold war, the russians kept increasing their
military spending, because they were preparing to attack the U.S. Every time
they thought they were ready, something would happen here to scare the willys
out of them, and they would scrap all of their plans, and start over. The main
reason for the colapse of russia, was their military spending. The russian
general also said that if President Carter had stayed in office another term,
or someone like him, the Russians WOULD have attacked.
How close we came....
Anyway...What this shows is that if a player in an empire game desides to over
tax is population, his population will eventully revolt.
> At 09:48 PM 5/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
Also If it was 95% of GNP, how could they feed themselves and produce any sort
of consumer goods? if you combine pure military production and civil
production with a military application (trucks batteries Aeroflot etc) you
could get a high percentage of GNP, but 95%?
> Paul Calvi wrote:
Navy
> had more ships at the end of Carter's last term than at the end of
Well, First off, I don't want to seem stuck up or a "know-it-all". I am
neither. What I said was what I heard from a tv reporter. (some of who either
distort facts, or don't have the facts to beging with). This might explain the
figures.
Also, the U.S. military during carter's presidency was limited in funds. they
had trouble scraping up the cash to maintain what they
had...In some cases, crewmen were "jury-rigging" things to keep them
going. The b-52 fleet at the time was at it's worst. only a third of
the b-52's could fly. the rest were out of commision for maintenance
problems.
One reporter (dan rather I think..) was trying to do a report from a
b-52 in the air...they had to try three planes before they found one
that could fly.
> At 08:47 AM 5/7/97 -0700, you wrote:
Sorry Don. I was not trying to put you down in any way. I was also referring
to the TV report, not your comments on it. One thing I found during my Masters
work was that trying to get solid figures on this stuff
is almost impossible. Every source you pick-up gives a different figure
and/or scale (different sources even refute the value of a nation's GNP
at any particular time).
The military wasn't really under-funded under Carter (although salaries
certainly where). Remember that the M1, AH-64, F-117, and, I think, the
Aegis system where all begun under Carter (as well as many more). I'm not
saying Carter was any defense God, just that he HAS gotten more of a bad rap
than he deserves. Also remember that the national deficit actually went DOWN
under Carter during his first two terms. Reagan's spending was wonderful at
the time but the military is certainly paying for it now. I remember in the
early 90s, my armor battalion didn't have enough funds for GAS so we could go
on maneuvers! Of course it showed the value of wargaming
I guess...:-)
> At 08:47 AM 5/7/97 -0700, you wrote:
Sorry Don. I was not trying to put you down in any way. I was also referring
to the TV report, not your comments on it. One thing I found during my Masters
work was that trying to get solid figures on this stuff
is almost impossible. Every source you pick-up gives a different figure
and/or scale (different sources even refute the value of a nation's GNP
at any particular time).
The military wasn't really under-funded under Carter (although salaries
certainly where). Remember that the M1, AH-64, F-117, and, I think, the
Aegis system where all begun under Carter (as well as many more). I'm not
saying Carter was any defense God, just that he HAS gotten more of a bad rap
than he deserves. Also remember that the national deficit actually went DOWN
under Carter during his first two terms. Reagan's spending was wonderful at
the time but the military is certainly paying for it now. I remember in the
early 90s, my armor battalion didn't have enough funds for GAS so we could go
on maneuvers! Of course it showed the value of wargaming
I guess...:-)
> Paul Calvi wrote:
Yes that drives me nuts too!
> The military wasn't really under-funded under Carter (although
I
> remember in the early 90s, my armor battalion didn't have enough funds
What did you do? Drive up to the gas station and say "fill er up!" and flip em
a charge card?:):):)
> -----
I had some thoughts.
A source of info: College economics books.
When I was going to college a while back, I started to take, then
dropped an entry-level economics course. And I still have the book.
It is: ECONOMICS: Principles, Problems, and Policies, Ninth edition.
Anyway, inside the front and back covers, it had the GNP and Population of the
U.S. from 1929 to 1982! According to these stats, the Population of the U.S.
was rising on average about 2% per year. If these numbers are reliable, we can
use this value in strategic games.