Talk:List of countries by military expenditures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
  • November 2005 - April 2007
    — Discussion about the European Union entry in the list. Please, read it before making any changes regarding the EU on the article.

Contents

[edit] EU

The national military budgets of Europe are out of EU jurisdiction therefore should not be included. You all know it so stop with the pro EU garbage on every page in wikipedia!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.217.48 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My, my, the inclusion of the EU appears to have irked some here, for a reason that I can't quite fathom. The article doesn't suggest that the EU itself has any control over the individual armies. If we were to draw that conclusion from the table, we would also be concluding that there is a single NATO army, a World army, an EU army, as well as a UK army that is separate to these hypothetical NATO, World and EU armies, and also a French, German, and so on.
Also, the EU is used in a comparative sense in other lists on Wikipedia, and does serve as a useful marker point. Its inclusion is not necessarily pro-EU. To assume that there is any political motivation behind its inclusion in (or omission from) the list surely goes against the principle of assuming good faith.
As Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, surely it should simply include as much information as possible in these tables? If figures were available for all Commonwealth members combined, then it should be included. If figures were available for all Schengen nations, that, too, should be included. If Texas were to decide to declare how much it contributes to the US total expenditure, then it should, surely, too, be included. These things should not be ranked, but should be on the list, for comparison, and to provide information. Omitting such data is not very helpful. 62.49.22.228 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it if Nato is kept and the EU is not numbered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.217.48 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My, my, the inclusion of EU in every list is obviously the work of people who live in dreamland and are tarnishing the credibility of Wikipedia. We can do without the "comparative nature" of placing the EU figure here. Well be happy to get a calculator to protect the CREDIBILITY OF WIKIPEDIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.47 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] archive

I've archived the RfC, anything more to archive?? Eurocopter tigre 20:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah how about your stupid fantasy Eu budgetNJguy281 00:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New name proposals for the article

I think if we don't include NATO and other military organisations in the main list, we can call the article "List of countries and federations by military expenditures"; this will include the EU and maybe the AU (the AU is not quite a federation). The article should have another section in which NATO, CSI and other organisations might be listed. Anyone agree with this? Eurocopter tigre 20:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess that sounds fine to me. Giandrea, any thoughts? Parsecboy 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It is OK for me too. Anyway I am looking for a solution not only for this article, but for List of countries by population and List of countries by total area too. I don't know if that will work. --giandrea 21:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you propose a similar name change at those articles, and see where it goes? Parsecboy 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we should rename this article first, because it can't be compared with the list of countries by population, etc. Just make sure that all such articles are called "List of countries...". Does anybody know how we can rename this article? I've never done this before, maybe we should ask an admin... Eurocopter tigre 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You can just move the article to its new name. It's the tab on the top at the right of history. --giandrea 10:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No how about you get some accurate information and stop adding the countries that are in the Eu together with a calculator thats sounds reasonable to meNJguy281 00:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

None is pretending that the EU Rapid Reaction Force budget is 200 million dollars. You should really read the article before commenting, you would have seen the initial note saying: The European Union (EU) figure represents the sum of the expenditures of all its 27 members and is listed unranked for comparison.. --giandrea 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
So we're agreed that it should be "List of countries and federations by military expenditures"? Parsecboy 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
For me it's ok. Eurocopter tigre 12:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Done, should we remove that note regarding EU? Should we rank the EU now? Eurocopter tigre 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that we should leave everything exactly as it is now. EU not ranked and note at the top. --giandrea 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Then why we changed the name? Eurocopter tigre 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding all 27 members is wrong anyway considering the EU has no jurisdiction over it. Its like saying a bank has the right to spend your money. It is vandalism in that it is misleading to anyone who sees it, which is exactly the reason why it was put up there. For pride nothing accurate. The Eu has no power over its member states who can raise or lower their budgets at anytime. It is wrong to put it there it is not a country but an organisation.NJguy281 19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should rank the EU because I don't know how to do it in the easier way. I removed the note and the italics. Eurocopter tigre 12:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The note should stay, because that is not the official spending of the European Union, it is a figure of the sum of the national spendings. Without the note it would be misinterpreted as the official EU budget. --giandrea 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Giandrea, don't you think we can rank the EU, maybe in italics with a new note?? Eurocopter tigre 13:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that the EU here is just for comparison, ranking it would be unfair, because that budget is not issued directly by the EU. The note is very explanatory, perhaps it could be shortened, but I'm against ranking it. It should be included in the list, but not ranked. We could rank the budged directly issued by the EU, like Eurofor and ERRF (if I'm not mistaken). --giandrea 13:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Giandrea on this point. Parsecboy 13:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I agree that we should leave it as it is now, for the moment. Eurocopter tigre 13:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my intrusion. In what sence in the EU a "federation"? Is NATO a federation? Maybe NAFTA or OPEC combined military expenditures should be included too. Or OECD countries. The Commonwealth? Africa? The Southern Hemisphere? Just a thought...

As the EU aggregated figure is now included with NATO in the table Supernational Military Forces, it is time that we remove it from the list under the table heading Countries, since we all agree it is not a country. That way the useful EU information is still there for comparison, but it not labelled in a clearly factually innacurate way. I have tried to do this but my edits have been quickly reverted. Another way would be to change the table label "Countries" to something which uncontroversially includes countries as well as the EU, such as "Entity".

As it stands the label is clearly and uncontroversially wrong. What should we do? Nick 195.137.96.79 21:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with including organizations such as the EU is that then there is no reason for other organizations with much less importance to be included such as what as happened here with the SCO. In my opinion sometimes it is appropriate for the EU to be included for comparison purposes but in this case the EU has no competence over the military of member states. It's the same as just adding the spending of a group of random countries. I think the list would look better if all non soverign states were removed because at the moment it's just confusing. Mad onion 09:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Or we could remove the SCO, because almost no one knows what it is, while NATO and EU are relevant. --giandrea 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets just remove the EU. Think about it, if the US had a misunderstanding with portugal and decides to attack Portugal and decimate it do you think ENGLAND WILL HELP?!?!

LETS HAVE A VOTE!

I VOTE TO PUT the military spending of the RANDOM COUNTRIES UNION (RCU) here composed of 27 member states lets vote who the members are because frankly, that is not that different to what people who insist on getting a CALCULATOR AND ADDING COUNTRIES WHO ARE SOVEREIGN COMMANDERS OF THEIR MILITARY IN TO THE EU.

I vote the inclusion of

TAJIKISTAN!

giandrea is the smartest person here he is a scholar and a phd with everthing. he thinks that it is relevant to see the EU in countries lists because it was relevant to all the three people which one of them, eurohelicopter rider got pissed and left their threesome

fyi giandrea is a 74 year old phd on the EU who graduated with flying colors and is actually omnipotent to the plight of the supposed EU citizens

The EU is not a federation, neither is NATO. So the title is misleading as it stands. 'List of countries and international organisations...'? Or we could just get rid of the international organisations. DSuser 19:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly different format

OK, I've moved the Supranational list to the top. Because it's so short it can be easily scrolled past. Before, people had to scroll through all the countries to see the EU figure which Eurocopter tigre was so keen to show. This way that figure is easily seen. Hence there is no need for the EU figure to be duplicated in the "Chart by Nation" list. I hope people think this is a good outcome! Peace, 195.137.96.79 00:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how the NATO figure was arrived at? If it is an aggregate of it's memeber state expenditures, I'd like to add that fact to the article. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.96.79 (talk • contribs)

Also, I think it may be useful to add figures for other supranational organisations. Perhaps the AU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.96.79 (talk • contribs)

I've suggested adding other supranational orgs like the AU before, but have been unable thus far to find a sourced number for their combined defense budget, unless we want to just do the same that has been done for the EU and NATO, and just add together the member states defense budgets. Any thoughts? Parsecboy 14:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't make substantial changes to an article without discussing it here first. Especially after we discussed so long about the actual content and setup of the article. --giandrea 11:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. As you can clearly see from the talk page above and other editors talk pages I have discussed this matter in detail, and explained my edits carefully in the edit summary. As you know, it is unhelpful to simply revert other users constructive edits, and it is against Wikipedia policy to label such edits as vandalism as Eurocopter has persistently done in this article. There is no consensus that the EU should be included in the list "Chart by Nation" and besides, the EU figure is now listed twice. Duplicate information is not required and makes the encyclopedia less clear. Please do not simply revert other editors carefully planned, discussed and executed work. Perhaps, giandrea, you should add to the article instead of damaging it. Thankyou. Reverting. 195.137.96.79 00:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


As an additional note - I see that you have reverted my spelling corrections and things of that nature. Please explain how your revert improves the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.96.79 (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
Actually Giandrea, I am sorry to have accused you of damaging the article - I made a mistake and confused the Talk Page history with the Article history, but i stand by what I said.
Me and other users (especially Giandrea and Parsecboy) discussed this thing for ages and we finnaly reached a compromise. You can't just come and move all the things around. I agree with the spelling corrections but please do not move the EU, it may be considered vandalism. Eurocopter tigre 13:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


The archived discussion you mention concerns the renaming of the article, not the incusion of the EU in the list entitled "Chart by Nation". There is absolutely no agreement on this inclusion at all, and all editors have an equal right to edit this article - it does not belon to me, you, or anyone else. If you like the other changes i made besides the removal of the duplicated EU figure, the pleas leave them there. Edit the article instead of simply reverting it to a less accurate, less up-to-date and spelling error laden form. Do not label my edits as vandalism. I repeat my eagerness to talk about this and find a constructive solution that includes the EU figure in a more appropriate way. I am restoring the more up to date and corrected version of the article. Please explain how your reversion improves the article. Regards, 195.137.96.79 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I attempted to stay out of this edit-war and watch from the sidelines, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast, so perhaps I can help work it out. I have to agree with 195.137.96.79; Eurocopter, you can't simply label a constructive edit with which you disagree as vandalism and revert it. Yes, we reached a compromise, but that isn't necessarily binding on other users, and isn't permanent. If other editors come to the article and wish to change it, they can, provided they discuss it (which 195 has been doing, both here and on Eurocopter's talk). Personally, I don't see what's objectionable about 195's version; the reason Euro and Giandrea wanted the EU in the countries table in the first place was for ease of comparison. Now it's at the top; pretty easy to compare with the biggest spenders. What's wrong with that? Parsecboy 23:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Parsecboy, let me ask you some questions. Why we discussed this thing for almost a month? Why we reached that compromise? Why we changed the name of the article? For me all this seems to be useless now, because a new user, with no wikipedia experience is coming and changing all the things around, and the worst part, one of the user which agreed with the compromise, doesn't respect it. It doesn't worth anymore wasting my time with this article or this discussion. Eurocopter tigre 09:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Eurocopter, we had that discussion and reached that compromise for the three of us, who were at the time the primary editors involved in the dispute. It's not a permanent solution and shouldn't be used to stifle debate. The three of us don't own this article. Parsecboy 09:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Parsecboy, I've said my opinion, if you wan't to consider it, ok, but I'm not discussing this thing anymore. Au revoir Eurocopter tigre 09:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the table in a way that I think may enable us to please both points of view. I think it is still unsatisfactory in some ways, but maybe we can work on that. I doubt many people will object to the information being there - it is more a question of how it is presented. For me, the important thing is that aggregated spending figures should not be presented as if they are from a country. This is because then the ammounts of money are effectively listed twice - once for the country, and again for its contribution to an aggregated figure. This doesn't make arithmetical sense. I also object to the de facto rank granted to such figures when included simply as another country. I am convinced that a pattern can emerge here that will work for all of us - though this might not be it. Regards to all, 195.137.96.79 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the double listing of some countries defense budgets, as well as the implied rank. Your most recent version looks alright to me. Parsecboy 09:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the current version. I've never heard of SCO before, but anyway it can stay for me... --giandrea 14:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Good! Glad to hear it. Yeah, I didn't know about the SCO either so thanks to whoever found it - especially the icon. I think that we can probably get this to a form that may be helpful in relation to other lists of a similar nature as this kind of dispute seems to be quite common. Personally I think the issues here are actually very subtle, once one gets past the whole Europhile/Europhobe thing. Thanks to all. 195.137.96.79 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

giandrea is the smartest person here he is a scholar and a phd with everthing. he thinks that it is relevant to see the EU in countries lists because it was relevant to all the three people which one of them, eurohelicopter rider got pissed and left their threesome

fyi giandrea is a 74 year old phd on the EU who graduated with flying colors and is actually omnipotent to the plight of the supposed EU citizens

No comment...And BTW, I'm Eurocopter Eurocopter tigre 11:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ACTUAL EU MILITARY SPENDING

The actual spending of the EU military is less than only 6 billion US Dollars

This is so because the budget of the European Union is :

€862 billion for the period 2007-2013. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Budget)

So thats 862 billion / 7 years = 123 Billion Euros a year....

The Military budget of the EU would most likely come from its EXTERNAL ACTIONS EXPENDITURE

of 4% of that figure so the total amount would be only

123 x .04 = 4.92 Billion Euros

Converting that to dollars would be 5.97 billion USD

That is considering they use the whole 4% on the military.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.1.104.40 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

sorry but you have made a mistake: the EU does not have a millitary force in the sense of an army (although there is a rapid rection force being built) EU millitary spending is a total of all EU countries millitary budgets

So if the EU does not have a military force, what is the sense of getting a calculator and adding all of the member states expenditures and placing it under EU TOTAL? Isnt that useless for what ever reason?

YES IT IS USELESS. but these pro EU retards can't seem to figure it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.217.48 (talk • contribs)

You may disagree with them, but try to be civil, ok? Parsecboy 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

To end further debates over countries' military budgets I propose that all top 30 countries must have a reference to a reliable website proving the figure given like how the United Kingdom, China, and Russia have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.202.252 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Lets find us some sources, people. Parsecboy 01:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
the source for the russian total is the christian science monitor. the article cited is pretty bad, and i don't think the figures should be trusted verbatim.

[edit] EU ?

Why is the EU in this list ? NATO is a defence organisation, so OK. If the EU is included as a regional grouping of countries, then why not include too groupings like ASEAN and the AU ? The sole addition of the EU in this list looks like either a case of eurocentricism or pro-European puff. Has it not been considered that some EU member states are constitutionally neutral ? Has it not been considered that the european constitutional treaty has not been passed - so the WEU still exists and, as a defence organisation, perhaps has more legitimacy to be included in this list than the EU ? I vote for removing the EU from this list, or else add in the many other world organisations that would have a greater or equal claim to be included in this list.--jrleighton 03:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archives and see what me and other 2-3 users discussed about this. Eurocopter tigre 08:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have. A lot of veribage: what was the conclusion - none from a first look. The points I raise above still stand. --jrleighton 00:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I believe that the EU should not be here because our military is not controlled by the EU Government and is 110% sovereign in every way. I disagree with adding the figures up because the EU is a lap dog of America and we are not. We do not agree on most of the things the EU pushes like its constitution. Adding the countries up is a complete disrespect and should not be placed for statistical purposes.

And what is the serious point being made here ? --jrleighton 00:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgea

millitary spending ezceeds that of the US.

There has been a mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.242.28.186 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removal of the EU

Hello,

Why are people constantly pushing for the inclusion of the EU here on this list? My country's military is completely independent from EU control. The EU is a lap dog of the US and we are not. Adding all the figures of the member states is complete disrespect. Even for statistical purposes it doesnt make any sense.

I’m not entirely surprised that the military of the Philippines is independent of EU control. Or did I miss something? --Van helsing 06:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World flag

Why is the UN flag used for the whole world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.164.43 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 May 2007

Don't know, but I don't think it's a good idea. --giandrea 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me. I think the new icon is much better. Well done to whoever found it. 195.137.96.79 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title change anyone?

Hello again. Ok, I know this debate has been entered into before, but now that the totals are clearly labeled as such, we may as well change the article name to "List of countries by defense spending". Some reasons: 1. The title at the moment is very long. 2. Despite the earlier debate that led to the name change, the EU isn't a "federation" and has never claimed to be. 3. NATO is not a federation either. 4. As the aggregated totals are now listed as such the initial rationale for using the word "federation" is invalid.

Any comments? Regards, 195.137.96.79 23:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the EU isn't a country, so if you want to move the article back to just "Countries", then the EU needs to be placed in a separate table. Try getting that past Eurocopter and Giandrea. Parsecboy 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I understand what you're saying Parsecboy. All I would say is that I don't think that the use of the word "federation" really helps here. I agree that the EU is not a country and has virtually no say over that spending, as we have discussed before. Nevertheless, since neither the EU or NATO is a federation I dont think that word helps here, and I think the way the table is layed out now makes it clear that they are not countries either, but mere sum totals of member state expenditures, whatever that is worth. Besides, the table is still called "Chart by Nation", and we all agree that neither NATO nor the EU are "Nations". I just think that a simpler title would be neater and more encyclopedic, though I totally sympathise with your viewpoint. Best regards 195.137.96.79 01:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are they different?

In the List of countries by size of armed forces article, the military spending/defence budget is different. Can someone please tell me why?--Waterfall999 10:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats a good point, and one of the problems Wikipedia seems to have is maintaining lots of different but related lists of figures that do not link up with eachother. I think a technical solution to this would be great, but I have no idea how or where such issues are discussed. It seems that the spending figures in List of countries by size of armed forces are taken from 2005, where as some of the figures in this article are more up to date. Changes in exchange rates and how to implement them are are also a problem. Best regards 195.137.96.79 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colombia's 2005 military expenditures were more than $7 billion.

here's the source: [1]

it was 13.806278 trillion Colombian pesos which is equal to 7.0508963 billion USD:

[2]

[edit] Cost of the French Gendarmerie (2006)

For anyone curious, I've just had a look on the french ministry of defence site which stated that the Gendarmerie Nationale's budget in 2006 was around 6,7 billion euros. link (in french): http://www.defense.gouv.fr/defense/enjeux_defense/defense_au_parlement/presentation_auditions/autres/plf_2006_gendarmerie_nationale

Just as a reminder, the french defence budget in 2006 was about 47 billion euros, so this represents 14-15% of the total.

This is just to put a figure on what is said in the article (they are technicaly part of the military but are used most of the time more as a police force).

Daft, 17:40, 27 July 2007

[edit] Commonwealth

As we're including notional totals for the military expenditures of international organisations, I've included the total for the Commonwealth. Happy to discuss removing these organisations totally, but there is no justification for this organisation to be removed and for the NATO and the EU to remain in. In fact, there is greater connection between Commonwealth militaries as a large proportion of them share the same person as Commander-in-Chief. DSuser 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, does that mean we'll be seeing the AU, NAFTA and ASEAN next? Why not the Arab League or OPEC while we're at it...I think it'll start getting a bit out of hand at this rate.
You do bring up a good point though.
Daft, 20:54, 30 July 2007
Exactly, Daft. Got to be consistent. All or none, I think. DSuser 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense, I think. The EU is fundamentally different from all other international organisations, and if we should think about including others as well, it'd be a question of including ASEAN and the African Union -- but not the politically irrelevant Commonwealth. —Nightstallion 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

what's with the aggressiveness Nightstallion? Daft, 10:35, 31 July 2007

Mh? I thought my statement was a bit forceful, but not aggressive; sorry if it appeared so. —Nightstallion 08:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU in lists

DSuser and I have drafted a complete analysis of why it would be a good or a bad idea to include the EU in lists of countries in some form (either directly in the list or as a special note outside the list). We'd kindly invite all editors who are interested in the EU and/or lists of countries to take a look at Talk:European Union/inclusion in lists of countries, read all of the arguments presented and then state their opinion on what a sensible compromise might look like. Thanks! —Nightstallion 09:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


EU this and EU that... what are we even talking about? its not a country so why are we putting it in lists that pertains to countries? that sounds really uneducated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.104.108 (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GDP spending

Can a column be put for each country when possible the percentage (%) of total GDP spending on military expenditures? Assassin3577 04:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on it Ahm2307 14:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germany spending more than France?

This surely can't be right, the list states that the germans spend 57,5 billion dollars as opposed to the french spending 57 billion. German spending in 06 was somewhere in the area of 39 billion I thought? Daft, 13:19, 12 August 2007

[edit] Need help with table

Can someone please help me fill out the table for military expenditures as a % of GDP. You can find all the data here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html Ahm2307 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] France's Budget

As far as I'm aware France's official military budget is 2.6% of France's nominal GDP, and France's nominal GDP is $2,232,000,000,000. 2.6% of $2,232,000,000,000 is $58,320,000,000 so $65,370,000,000 is obviously wrong.


the France military budget in 2007 is according to ministere de la defence €47,700,000 = $65,370,000,000 http://www.defense.gouv.fr/defense/decouverte/chiffres_cles/budget/projet_de_loi_de_finances_pour_2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.51.184.58 (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone keep changing the United Kingdom to 3rd it is 2nd if you like it or not. Britian spends a lot more on France because we are the 2nd most involved country in the war and terror and need the money. The milltary expenture is being rasing a few billion each year in the UK due to this and is expected to be over 100billion by 2015 so at the moment its 75billion stop changing this i had copied my editing into word and will just change it back as soon as i notice it. thank you. British/American citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.51.193 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, it does not add up, according to the link MOD link, (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefence/DefenceSpending.htm ), the UK has a budget of 33,447GBP = 66,392USD.
Maybe I am missing something but how do you get to 75,400USD? FFMG (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that according to the source given next to the UK's defence spending figure, which is from the Ministry of Defence, (and don't even try the Ministry of Defence doesn't know what it's talking about card) it says this puts us second in the world on defence spending and as FFMG is well aware of the importance of using sources (If you take a look at the United Kingdom talk page and France talk page you'll see his desperate attempts to use sources to rank the UK's GDP behind France's) And to heighlight this user's extreme pro-French bias and even attempts to make up history they stated on the France talk page that the French empire was larger than the British empire. Seems like this user is trolling to me. Also no where on the source given next to France's defence spending figure, which is from a French government website, does it say anywhere that French military spending is now ranked second. Another thing, the figures given by the Ministry of Defence are for the year 2007-2008 unlike the figures given by the French government website which are for year 2008-2009. I'm sure when the Chancellor of the Exchequer publishes the 2008 budget the UK's military spending will almost certainly be higher than France's due to France is not in Iraq and is in smaller numbers in Afghanistan. Signsolid (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I changed your wrong exchange rate value of €48,065,000,000 to $70,369,240,000 as of 06/02/2008 according to XE.com[3], which just happens to be the most used exchange rate website so I consider the calculation of the world's most used exchange website far superior than that of the editor who is carrying out a revenge attack. Oh and for the record nor do I care what you think just as you stated on the France talk page you don't care what I have to think. Signsolid (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I almost forgot the UK's military does not oppress I mean police its own people like France's does so the National Gendarmerie percentage (about 15%) of France's military budget isn't even really military spending. But then again if you've got riots in every city every night... Signsolid (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well change the rates if you want, change them everyday if that will make you happier, I was just curious how talk came to

the figure he/she did. I did ask did I not?

On another note, please don't make the whole thing personal, I really don't see why you care so much for one or two billion here and there. European counties all help each others and it is not a race anymore.
This whole list is a bit of a waste as the GBP/EUR will fluctuate and probably many countries will move up and down the rankings as the USD drops/climbs.
As for your attempt at insulting me, (I think that's what you are trying), about riots/police I will just say that I am too old to get drawn into those little games. FFMG (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI is greatly more infulanced in the world than France. We are in 80 differnt countries helping them and kaching this needs money and i can assure you we would have a higher defence budget than you. My Mum and Dad are Goverment officals and work along side top goverment and even they say its about 5 billion more than france in 2008-2009. Our army at the current moment has to deal with ever growing terrorism threats at home, defending the country against russia(btw if they even touch us with one bomb they will have it of Europe and America in otherwords were all dead.), the ever growing problems with natual disasters in the british isles, war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, new nurclear subrines being built, more tanks, more planes, aircraft carriers being built in the next cople of year. The PM Gordon Brown is very likely to increase the budget a hell of a lot this year above frances new budget. Dont forget who and always has been a more global miltary country. you wont even send your troops to the dangerous areas of afghanistan, just leave that to the british and americans, shows whos country has the better milltarys. Being the 2nd most advanced and best trained army in the world comes with a price! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.51.193 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources missing

The reference [4] is broken, and the World Factbook mostly list slightly older data (and only as percentage of GDP to boot) — IOW, the article is lacking sources for most of the main chart. Lars T. 23:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

According to the CIA World fact book Irans military expenditures are 2.5% of it's GDP and it's GDP is $599.2 Bilion meaning Irans expenditures are $15 Bilion.[5] If anyone can find an other source wich actually states Irans military expenditures as of 2007 please do but I have been unable to find it and the current source is out of date as it is of 2005 and we are 2 years further now. But should we change it to $15 Bilion now? The Honorable Kermanshahi 10:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, according to the CIA WFB, Iran's GDP is $193.5 billion, you are using GDP Purchasing power parity. Just because Iranians have a lower cost of living doesn't mean their government gets weapons cheaper. Lars T. (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NO EU!!!

Stop adding the EU already, We all know that adding the member states of the EU together with a calculator is not valid, as the EU has no control over it. Enough with the pro EU garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.217.48 (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First, please add new sections on the bottom of the page, not the top. Second, while I do agree that the EU really shouldn't be listed here, because it doesn't actually control every member states' military, among other reasons, please refrain from making comments like "Enough with the pro EU garbage". It doesn't help your cause. Parsecboy 22:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capital of Canada

The image "Military Spending in 2005" has symbols for spending in Canada located on the map at Toronto. Our capital is actually Ottawa, some 400 km north-east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.30.232 (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per capita?

Wouldn't a table based on per capita be useful too? Pgr94 07:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources still missing

I'm sick and tired that (some) people ask for references for every little shit on Wikipedia, but that people here pretend this article is well sourced. Lars T. (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poland

31,5 bln USD would be like 10% of Polish GDP. In "Polish Armed Forces" article it's 9,65 bln and this is a good number

[edit] Source Columns

There needs to be a definitive column that holds the footnote numbers. I think the "year" makes the most sense, as it's the most current factor, but even if it ends up going next to the dollar amount, it shouldn't be next to the country.--DMCer (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia

The percent for Macedonia in the list for Military Expenditure as a percentage of GDP was overly overestimated. It appeared the Macedonia was by far the most militant European country, which is simply silly. I have seen that the percent was accounted by CIA, but it is only estimation. The numbers are the following: military expenditures for 2006 were 5,785,442,000 denars, and GDP was 308,772,000,000 denars. The rest is simple maths. (Zdravko mk (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] china way to high

Stop adding chinese figures as 140.000 billion in PPP thats nothing worth, the real figures for 2007 is only $45.000 billion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.118.142 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Might be noted that the US Government and other governments around the world believe that China has under-reported their military expenditures for several years:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080303/NATION/507590403/1001&template=nextpage
James (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom and France rankings

I would like to point out that while this article states France is spending more on its military than the UK when the UK is ordering much more military equipment than France. For example:

So I'm not sure exactly how exactly France can be spending more on its military than the UK. Check the relevant Wikipedia articles if you dispute the figures I've given above. Signsolid (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The carriers are not been paid for this year, they are developed by both countries. So I suspect they are spending a lot less than that. Seen that both countries I jointly developing the carrier I would assume they are roughly spending the same this year.
Anyway, you only list ordered stock, but you left out salaries, current stock, research and developments, current deployments and so on. The current fluctuation of the GBP vs EUR vs USD probably has a lot to do with it as well, (this is partly what makes this list a bit useless).
I don't get what you are trying to say. Does a budget mater to you that much? What would you like to do, remove 15% to the current budget so it 'feels' better? FFMG (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well french person the British dont mind america taking over us in global infulance but France is a no no! Britian has always been a more powerfull country than france. Yes we are both very powerfull countries. If France is so powerfull why cant they come along with the British and American(the super power troops) and help us out in Afghanistan they hey? too scared that you will have a 9/11 or 7/7 is it. If your country is better than Britian in Miltary and they spend loads of money aparently why dont they send more troops to Afghanistan and help out in the world. You seen how much the Ameircans and British do to help out around the world in aid, never seem to hear about france though. Anyway talking about America i am off to the USA skiing now bye bye. ps. France does not spend more than Britian haha look at all the operations britain takes on and you think that money is coming from no were! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.51.193 (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your general knowledge is letting you down, France is involved in Afghanistan, and it is involved in many countries around the world.
As you seem to be American, I would suggest you have a look at the battle of Yorktown, this where the French helped secure a decisive victory for the Americans over the British, without it would would probably still be British.
Funny what you learn when you read books. FFMG (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I love the trolls :) The anonymous user 172.189.51.193 goes on and on about how great the US and "Britian" (sic!) are but isn't even able to write a single sentence in English. It's priceless. Just ignore these trolls, creating controversy is all they want. JdeJ (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes i know France is in Afghanistan but has been and will continue to be pressurerd for not having enough troops in Afghanistan and the ones there wont bother going to the dangerous part of the country where the enemy actually is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.51.193 (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the French military will be spending more on its salaries than the British military as they have more personnel though in terms of deployment the British military is deployed in Afghanistan in larger numbers than the French military and is also deployed in Iraq. I think the figures are to do with the French government has published its 2008 budget figures while the British government has only published up to its 2007 budget figures. Signsolid (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the UK so it could be true. But there are other things going on around the world apart from Iraq and Afghanistan.
France is currently deployed in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Balkans, Ivory Coast, Chad/Central African Republic, Darfur, Sudan, Kosovo, Djibouti, Gabon and Senegal. And maybe a few more countries.
I am sure that the UK is also deployed in a few other countries apart from the one regularly on CNN.
But, does it add up to more or less personnel? Does supporting troops in Sudan cost more or less than in Kosovo? Is the cost of running a Nuclear Carrier nore or less than running a conventional one?
As I said, it is probably down to currency fluctuations, at the moment the EUR is particularly strong against the USD/GBP. FFMG (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The British military is also deployed around the world. The reason I only mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan as they are the only 2 major war zones in the world at the moment, of which France is only involved in Afghanistan and has smaller numbers there than the UK. The British military is also deployed in Balkans (with larger numbers than France), Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Germany, Kenya, Canada, Belize, Brunei, Falkland Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, and Ascension Island. Signsolid (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I give up, everything is a competition with you. I already told you why one could spend more than the other. FFMG (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
As the article points out with regard to the first table:

Comparisons between figures in this table should be used with caution. There are comparison issues inherent with these figures: for example France includes in its defence expenditure the cost of maintaining the Gendarmerie, which is primarily used for what would be described in the United Kingdom, for example, as an internal police matter. Consequently, there is no corresponding expenditure made in the UK's defence budget.

When comparing the UK and France, it would probably be better to take the SIPRI figures in the second table (List of countries by military expenditures#Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Figures. --Boson (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The point of this article is to tell the readers how much each countries are spending on their military. What each country then chooses to do with their army is detailed in each military/armies articles.
Many countries, (including the UK), use their military for domestic purposes. How much does the US spend on the national guards? How much does China spend on their internal security personnel? As far as I know, Italy does not have a civilian police, (the Carabinieri is a military branch).
It is not up to the editors to choose what they feel might be a better way for a country to spend their budget. FFMG (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
A different way of looking it is that the gendarmerie is in fact a police force, not an army. If the UK decided to call the infantry 'paramedics' and pay them out of the Ministry of Health budget, they should still be counted as soldiers when comparing with other countries. It is quite normal and necessary to adjust the statistics in this way when comparing countries. There is nothing wrong with the article listing the raw expenditure classified as "military" by the country concerned, but care must be taken when drawing conclusions, as Signsolid appears to do. In other words: one reason why the French military budget is higher than the British (assuming that to be true) might be that they pay more policemen out of that budget than the UK does. --Boson (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I know very well what the Gendarmes do, yes they do some police work, but they are also a fighting unit, they last fought in Kosovo I believe.
The point I am trying to make is that just about every country uses some of its military for civilian uses. France is by far not the only one to do so.
If the UK was to use the NHS to pay for soldiers then it would still not have a place in this article. Because this is not what the article aims to do.
This article is flawed at many levels, (that I tried to explain to Signsolid), but it would be even worse if we were to arbitrarily choose what qualifies and what does not.
In the case of the Gendarmerie, how much would you remove from the French budget?
In the case of the Carabinieri, how much would you remove from the Italian budget?
In the case of the national guards, how much would you remove from the US budget?
In the case of the Queens Guard, how much would you remove from the UK budget?
What about China, North Korea and so on? At a stretch it might actually be possible to do for 'bigger' countries, (with lots of referencing), but for countries like Swaziland or Kenya, how do you tell what should/shouldn't be removed from the budget?
The South African air force actually budgets for humanitarian operations in neighboring countries, should that be removed from their budget?
So, as I said, We should leave the article as it is List of countries by military expenditures, and let the reader come to their own conclusions in each military articles. FFMG (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the article should be left fundamentally as it is (though I have some reservations about including a ranking when no attempt is made to standardize the basis). Perhaps, however, the caveat about comparisons should be made more prominent, since some people apparently do make comparisons in spite of the clear warning. If one were looking for improvements, it might be useful to point out that the second table specifically addresses the issue of comparability. As to what expenditure should be included or excluded for the purpose of comparison, this is also addressed by SPIRI, who, I believe, ask the governments concerned for more details in order to provide figures based on more uniform definitions, as explained on their Web site. My comment was intended to explain why the contradiction was only apparent and to suggest using the more appropriate table when making comparisons. --Boson (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, if you cared to read the source from the French Ministry of Defense, you'd see that that the Gendarmerie budget is about 1.35 billion euros (0.9 billion for general expenses and 0.45 for new equipment). So even if you substrat the Gendarmerie budget from the French military expenditures, you still get 46.7 billion euros of military expenditures in 2008, which is 35.6 billion sterling pounds at today's exchange rate, i.e. still above the 34.0 billion sterling pounds of UK military expenditures in 2008-2009. So too bad for Signsolid, but the French do spend more on military than the British (which is not necessarily a good thing, but that's another debate). Keizuko (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion, at least as far as I'm concerned, was meant to be about international comparisons being based on similar definitions. The gendarmerie is a trivial example, which I adduced because it is specifically mentioned in the article as an example. SIPRI attempt to take account of such factors. The problem with the SIPRI figures is that they are older and are available for a smaller number of countries. It may or may not be the case that France currently spends more on defence, but such a statement is only really meaningful if based on the same definition, unless the difference is known to be so great as to make differences in definition irrelevant. I very much doubt that the gendarmerie issue is the only difference between France and Britain. The issue for the article, in my opinion, is whether it encourages the average reader to draw false conclusions from invalid invalid comparisons. If this became a frequent problem, it might be sensible to put the SIPRI figures first and/or highlight the caveat. Not giving a ranking based on comparisons involving different years and unknown sources might also prevent the most egregious comparison errors. Personally, I am not so much concerned with discussions on the Talk page as editors of country articles using the rankings without reading the small print.--Boson (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
From my point of view the article is about Military Expenditure, the list is ordered by how much each country is spending on military, (or at least claims to be spending).
It is not a ranking system, it does not make a country better than another, it simply lists how much one country is spending.
So we mustn't change anything as it is not what the article is for, (and it cannot be done for all the countries). As you yourself admit the other tables have more flaws and most of their data is questionable.
If anything the other tables should be removed, (or moved to their own articles), as they draw conclusion from the countries expenditures. The warning about the Gendarmerie should also be removed, as I said, over and over, every countries use a percentage of their military budgets on civilian uses so there is no point trying to remove the data as it cannot be done reliably for all the countries.
I really don't see why France is singled out for what every other country does. Or at the very least more examples, (like the US, the UK or Italy), should be added.
I don't understand the need/want to try and make a competition out of a fairly straight forward table. All is does is list how much a country is spending per year on military. FFMG (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I also don't see the need for making a competition out of it. My concern is that international economic comparisons are extremely difficult and complex. It is not permissible to take two figures and compare them if they are based on different definitions, methods of aggregation and so on. One can compare oranges and bananas, but this must be pointed out to the reader who may not have the economic training to realize the inadmissibilty of any conclusions drawn from one figure being slightly higher or lower than the other. I would feel happier with a sortable (possibly alphabetically sorted) table with no ranking (which implies such an invalid comparison). I don't see the need for any mention of the gendarmerie specifically, but any such table should include information on the basis and comparabilty of the figures. For the first table, it should be noted that there is no common basis (in terms of what is included) and no common year; it should also be noted that figures are not based on standardized exchange rates, purchasing power parity etc. Otherwise the information is misleading. This is a recurrring problem with all international comparisons. As you write, it is not a ranking system. Or rather it is not intended as a ranking system but it is being so understood by people who do not read the caveats and are misled by column heading "Rank". The statement "All is does is list how much a country is spending per year on military" is misleading because it is insufficiently precise. The table actually lists how much a country is or was spending (or was estimated to be spending) on a specific (but unknown) collection of items, subsumed under the heading "Military", based on specific (but different) aggregation rules applying to that country only, and converted (possibly by an unknown economist or layperson ) into USD at an unnamed exchange rate applying on an unknown (but probably different and possibly inappropriate) date, possibly making different and unspecified adjustments for each country. --Boson (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree with boson not all readers will understands the complications of exchange rates. perhapes a clearer but more general warning should be placed at the top of the main table just explaining thats these estemates must be not be taken at face value as they are all very difficult to compare fairly. regards-kieran locke. p.s also these kind of articles are easy for people with agendas to hijack. is there anyway to limit edits on wikipedia just out of interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.225.23 (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are various way of policing articles that are abused, but this article is fairly straightforward, (all it does is list the expenditures), so there is no point in protecting it.
What kind of warning were you thinking of adding? As I said, almost every country uses some of its defence budget for domestic uses. FFMG (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just that the figures shouldnt be taken at face value as they are based on exchange rates thats change dayly. for example britains military budget in dollars has gone down slightly but this is only because the value of the pound compared to dollar has decreased and not because the actual budget has changed.- regards kieranlocke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.225.23 (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exchange rates.

Note on UK & France budgets: The figures user:FFMG changed them to after reverting vandalism weren't the actual figures according to x-rates.com as I just checked them only minutes after the change was made. I've corrected them now anyway. Signsolid (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of www.xe.com, (or x-rates.com), I used Google.com, (but I have no idea where they get their rates from).
But anyways, both rates are near enough. Maybe we should go around and update the rates of all the countries. FFMG (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Georgian military expenditures is 15 % of GDP!!!!

Georgian military expenditure is a. 15 % of Nominal GDP (2007). Military expend. 1,2 billions USD (2007), Nominal GDP 7,76 billions USD (2006, IMF). Thus, Georgia is number 1 in Europe, and only second to North Korea in world! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.138.70 (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population

There should be a column for population, to provide perspective and easier comparison of different countries.

[edit] United States

I think it's noteworthy that the United States alone is more than 50% of the world total and more than 10X the nearest single nation. Maybe that should be added. Don't Be Evil (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? How would that help the article? FFMG (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam's military expenditure.

Before a previous change, it was listed at about 800,000 million, which is incorrect (with no citation). After the change it was listed as 1.3 billion, which is also incorrect, also without citation. The numbers which actually has sources is $3.3 billion (Globalsecurity.com), $4 billion (www.borgenproject.org), and the CIA Factbook estimate of 5.5 billion. IMHO, the globals security number should be use. Akaloc (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Military Budget of Colombia

Is $8.6 billion (6.5% of nominal GDP):

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.90.224.211 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But according to the document, the $8.6 Billion is for 2007 to 2010, (from what I can understand).
I'll ask the Military of Colombia editors to shed some light on it.FFMG (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albania

Why is it listed twice? Zibzibzib (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Because somebody made two edits moving Albania slightly up in the list, and somebody else decided that guy was a known vandal, but screwed up a simple undo, deleting the Estonia entry instead. Lars T. (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burmyanmar

This is probably Original Research, but the 39m figure seems horribly unlikely. http://yearbook2005.sipri.org/ch8/app8A is the Stockholm group's study that claims 16.4b in 2002 (more than the country's listed GDP?). The updated version (http://first.sipri.org/non_first/milex.php) shows just the unconverted local currency. The CIA factbook page for Burma claims a realistic exchange rate of 1k kyat/$, which makes the SIPRI number $73.1m, but that ignores 5 years of inflation in a country known for inflation. The official (i.e. probably completely fabricated) exchange rate in 2003 was ~6 kyat/$ which is probably why the GDP numbers and expenditure numbers are so meaningless.Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading

The figures given in the first table are misleading. The French include their domestic police force in their defence expenditures, whereas the UK does not. The UK's defence spending exceeds that of France, as shown by the Stockhom Peace Institute figures quoted below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that fluctuating exchange rates distort figures. The gendarmerie of France does consume quite a large proportion of the French defence budget, about 15% I think. The Queen's Guards argument was seriously flawed as the Queen's Guards are a part of the British army and are tiny in number compared to the French gendarmerie. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't consume even 1% of the British defence budget. The point I was trying to make is there should be a note stating exchange rate fluctuations distort figures when converted into US dollars. Signsolid (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The queen's Guard are not part of the MOD budget? I find this very hard to believe, are all the soldiers parading up and down the Mall also not soldiers? What about the truck full of soldiers parked next to Buckingham Palace during the changing of the guards? And what about the ones that Guard all the palaces and touristic area around England, Scotland and Ireland?
Talking of Ireland, are those soldiers or policemen driving around most of the time, (granted there are less and less of them)?
In any case, this is only a small example that I used, you keep missing the point I am making, every country uses parts of their budget for domestic uses, so if you want to list one country as an example then you will need to list all of them.
The Gendarmerie is even more complicated as some of them are actually in military operations, so how much of their budget would you subtract?
And as I have said many times, this is what what the article is about, (but I agree that the exchange rate). FFMG (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it as long as it's clearly explained. Some third-world countries have currencies that are so unstable that converting them into a dollar value is nearly impossible (q.v. Burma/Myanmar), and the entire list should be taken with a grain of salt.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Queen's Guard are a part of the Minitry of Defence's budget because they're a part of the British Army and not a seperate branch of the military like the French Gendarmerie is. The British military has only 3 branches, the British Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force. Another thing is the French Gendarmerie is huge as it employs 104,275 personnel and costs €7.7 billion out of the French military budget Gendarmerie Nationale official site. The Queen's Guard are only soldiers of the British Army that are used to protect the Royal Family and are not a seperate branch of the military nor a police force. Also I doubt that quite as many British Army soldiers are used to protect Buckingham Palace as the 104,275 strong French Gendarmerie and costs €7.7 billion out of the MOD's budget to guard the palace each year. This arguement is like comparing the Pope's Swiss Guard to the 186,342 strong US Marines Corp. branch of the US military. In Northern Ireland soldiers on patrol are merely British Army soldiers and are not part of any gendarmerie, seperate military branch, nor police force. The UK has no gendarmerie or anything like it. Quite a lot of countries have gendarmeries but the UK has never had one nor would the British people ever allow their military to police them. The UK has a completely seperate non-military civilian police force, like the French police force but not like the French Gendarmerie which is a seperate branch of the French military used to police its own people.Signsolid (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You keep missing the point, over and over. I have better things to do than try and explain it to you over and over again.
Re-read what I was trying to say and you will see why this article will not change to suit you or your agenda. FFMG (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)