litvin@uiucuxc.UUCP (11/30/84)
{..}
I noticed in yesterday's (Wednesday) WSJ that The Supreme Soviet, or Parliament
was told that '85 arms spending will be equivalent of $22.38 billion. As the
Journal noted, Soviet spending on arms is believed to be about 2X that amount
by some creative accounting. Anyway, say they're spending about $50 billion
on defense.
The same day's Journal had an article about how the Pentagon is firm on its
request for $333.7 billion budget for fiscal '86.
What gives? How come there is a nearly 7X difference between the two countries
on spending?
John Litvin
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!litvingjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (12/02/84)
> {..} > >I noticed in yesterday's (Wednesday) WSJ that The Supreme Soviet,or Parliament >was told that '85 arms spending will be equivalent of $22.38 billion. As the >Journal noted, Soviet spending on arms is believed to be about 2X that amount >by some creative accounting. Anyway, say they're spending about $50 billion >on defense. There are two possibilites: 1) It's bullshit. Both my World Almanac and SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) say that U.S. military spending is about 12% higher than Soviet military spending. There are several other factors: The U.S. GNP is twice that of the Soviet Union, there is no political pressure from arms corporations in the U.S.S.R., and Russian soldiers work for peanuts. 2) The WSJ meant spending on nuclear weapons. >The same day's Journal had an article about how the Pentagon is firm on its >request for $333.7 billion budget for fiscal '86. This is definitely all military activites, not just the arms race. It will will also probably be trimmed to about 300 billion by Congress. Since the arms race is only about 10% of military spending, this comes out to 30 billion, roughly the same as Soviet spending. >What gives? How come there is a nearly 7X difference between the two countries >on spending? > > John Litvin > ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!litvin Get the facts straight, man. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Madam, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -Leonid Breshnev, speaking to Margaret Thatcher.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/02/84)
> I noticed in yesterday's (Wednesday) WSJ that The Supreme Soviet, or Parliament > was told that '85 arms spending will be equivalent of $22.38 billion. As the > Journal noted, Soviet spending on arms is believed to be about 2X that amount > by some creative accounting. Anyway, say they're spending about $50 billion > on defense. > > The same day's Journal had an article about how the Pentagon is firm on its > request for $333.7 billion budget for fiscal '86. > > What gives? How come there is a nearly 7X difference between the two countries > on spending? The actual Soviet defense expenditures were over 20 times what they said they were spending. (Don't flame me if I'm wrong, because I don't remember exactly.) They are certainly getting as much military for their money as we are, at least. Wayne
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (12/05/84)
The Soviet defense budget is a fraction of the US's because war is labor-intensive, and Soviet labor is cheap. Besides which, the government can determine the budget by adjusting prices (rather than adjusting acquisitions) :-) David Rubin
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (12/06/84)
>I noticed >in yesterday's (Wednesday) WSJ that The Supreme Soviet, or Parliament >was told that '85 arms spending will be equivalent of $22.38 billion. As the >Journal noted, Soviet spending on arms is believed to be about 2X that amount >by some creative accounting. Anyway, say they're spending about $50 billion >on defense. > >The same day's Journal had an article about how the Pentagon is firm on its >request for $333.7 billion budget for fiscal '86. > >What gives? >How come there is a nearly 7X difference between the two countries >on spending? Among other problems, this observation is a clear case of an apples-and-oranges comparison. It compares Soviet ARMS spending with American MILITARY spending. In case you don't know the difference, here is a (VERY) small list of examples of MILITARY spending that is not ARMS spending: Gas for jeeps Jeeps Coffee for solders Carrots for soldiers Spaghetti for soldiers PAYCHECKS FOR SOLDIERS (Yes, Virginia, they do get paid to be soldiers!) Pensions for soldiers Doorknobs for barracks Doors to put the doorknobs on Wrenches so soldiers can fix things (I don't like them costing $450 either) Hamburger for soldiers Polish for the brass fixtures on Navy ships Navy ships Loudspeakers for the PA systems on Navy ships Loudspeakers for the PA systems elsewhere than Navy ships Spare parts for jeeps (see item #2 above) Beds for soldiers Linens for beds for soldiers Pillows for beds for soldiers Pillowcases for pillows for beds for soldiers Barbed wire for fences for military facilities Paint for Navy ships Paint for things other than Navy ships Radar units for Navy ships Antennae for radar units for Navy ships Motors to make the anennae for radar units for Navy ships go around Ropes to tie the Navy ships to the dock Docks to tie the ropes to to keep the ships from drifting from Pearl to Subic all by themselves Lightswitches Coffeepots to brew the coffee I mentioned earlier in. Radios to listen to Radios to talk on Airplanes Rubber handles for some of the switches and knobs in the airplanes Dishes to eat the carrots and spaghetti and other as yet unmentioned foodstuffs from by the soldiers. Let's see, have I missed anything? Let's also keep this in mind when someone decides that we're spending 200-300 billion on nuclear weapons. We're spending $21 billion on nuclear weapons. A lot of money, but keep things in perspective. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard ...Though we may sometimes disagree, You are still a friend to me!
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/08/84)
> > I noticed in yesterday's (Wednesday) WSJ that The Supreme Soviet, or Parliament > > was told that '85 arms spending will be equivalent of $22.38 billion. As the > > Journal noted, Soviet spending on arms is believed to be about 2X that amount > > by some creative accounting. Anyway, say they're spending about $50 billion > > on defense. > > > > The same day's Journal had an article about how the Pentagon is firm on its > > request for $333.7 billion budget for fiscal '86. > > > > What gives? How come there is a nearly 7X difference between the two countries > > on spending? > > The actual Soviet defense expenditures were over 20 times what they said > they were spending. (Don't flame me if I'm wrong, because I don't remember > exactly.) They are certainly getting as much military for their money as > we are, at least. > > Wayne I have to agree with Wayne on this one. I doubt that they are spending 20 times the official estimate but they are spending about the same as we are. I researched this issue for the 70's and found that during the 70's, according to CIA estimates the Soviets were spending more than we were. There have been various controversies about those CIA estimates, but regardless of the exact evaluation, the result would be that both powers were spending about the same amount. The Soviets at that time began to station a large military force on the Chinese border after Nixon's trip to China. After Reagan's buildup I am sure we are spending more. tim sevener whuxl!orb