Leadership: A Very Modern Arms Race


May 20, 2020: Global defense spending is on the rise again, and is currently about $2 trillion a year. In 2019 spending was up 3.6 percent over the previous year. This is the largest one year jump in a decade. Since 2010 defense spending has increased more than seven percent. One thing hasn’t changed since 2010, spending overall, as a percentage of global GDP continues to decline, from 2.6 percent in 2010 to 2.2 percent now.

Global defense spending hit a plateau after 2010. This was the result of the 2008 worldwide economic recession followed by the sharp decline in oil prices after 2013. Global defense spending increased 25 percent between 2008 and 2010, from $1.28 trillion to $1.6 trillion. Since then it has barely kept up with inflation. Put another way, defense spending went from 2.5 percent of world GDP in 2007 to 2.6 percent in 2010. At that point, the United States was responsible for about 43 percent of that spending. That has changed as U.S. spending is now 38 percent of global spending. During the first decade of the 21st century American defense spending increased 80 percent and accounted for most of the worldwide increase during the first decade of the new century. During that period military spending declined in Europe while it was up nearly everywhere else. That included Africa and South America. Russia was rearming in a big way, and China's increase was smaller in 2010 because of the recession, but there was still an increase. India and China are in something of an arms race, although it is mostly India trying to catch up with an economically much stronger China. Since 2010 defense spending in Asia, especially China, has accounted for most of the increase in overall spending.

All this is still less than the Cold War numbers, which reached a peak in the late 1980s, when spending (adjusted for inflation), went past $1.9 trillion a year. After the Cold War ended in 1991, worldwide spending fell by nearly half, to about a trillion a year. Since then, especially since the war on terror and growing aggressiveness by Iran, China, North Korea and Russia, global defense spending has been rising. It was just over a trillion dollars in 2005. From 2010 to 2018 global defense spending went from $1.6 trillion to $1.8 trillion. That trend continues.

Defense spending is dangerous, even if you never use all those weapons. The Soviet Union, which started the arms race in the early 1960s, couldn't keep it up and disintegrated in 1991 partly because of its excessive military spending.

Global defense spending began to rise again in the late 1990s. Now annual global military spending is rising steadily. But it's not the same as before. In fact, it's very different. Back during the Cold War era, there were over a hundred million people under arms, and each year, factories turned out thousands of tanks, hundreds of warplanes and dozens of warships. No more, not even close, even though current spending is nearly back to its Cold War peak.

There are fewer than 40 million people under arms now, and tank production rarely exceeds a few hundred a year, with annual warplane production of less than a hundred a year, and only a few dozen warships. When the Cold War ended, so did the era of huge conscript armies with masses of tanks. The Soviet Union had over 50,000 tanks when the end came. No more large numbers of combat aircraft and warships. Suddenly, after 1991, quantities sharply declined and everything was more expensive. Conscripts were replaced by far fewer professionals, who got paid a lot more money. This was something the British pioneered in the 1960s, followed by the United States in the 1970s.

When the Cold War ended, and the world saw what pros could do in the 1991 Gulf War, everyone began to dismantle their conscript armies. Smaller armed forces, staffed by professionals and equipped with less, but more capable, gear, were the new norm. Another change has been the growth in U.S. defense spending between 2003 and 2010, to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This included lots of money for bases in Iraq, and the hiring of over 100,000 civilians, including about 20,000 armed security contractors, to help with the war effort.

Thus the patterns of defense spending have changed. Much more of it now goes for payroll, and for buying far fewer, but higher quality, weapons. More money goes into equipment, notably high tech stuff like satellite-based communications and computers. Billions of dollars a year is spent on satellite communications alone, and not just by the United States.

With the Soviet Union gone, no one else out there wants to try and match the United States spending levels. The war on terror also has American spending going up again. Currently, the United States spends about $732 billion a year (according to SIPRI, an independent defense research organization), all of Europe, over $250 billion, all of Asia, nearly fifty percent more, the Middle East, over $120 billion (and rising fast). Africa and the rest of the Americas account for the rest. One change has been an increase in African spending, mainly to deal with persistent and growing Islamic terrorist violence. While nearly 40 percent of the spending is by the United States, most of that money is not buying weapons, but payroll, benefits and materials needed for training and operations, like food, fuel, spare parts and services.

For most of the decade, not many new tanks, warplanes or combat ships were built, as everyone continued to live off the Cold War surplus. But that is changing. Many countries want to build new stuff, despite the fact that everything has gotten so much more expensive. That's because computers and powerful sensors and all manner of nifty new technology make possible the greater lethality in new weapons. For example, your basic $500 assault rifle becomes far more lethal when you add several thousand dollars’ worth of computerized accessories.

Countries are spending more on defense, but they aren't buying the same kind of stuff they were two decades ago. Everyone, including the Russians and Chinese, have agreed that the Western way of warfare, with a small number of well-trained volunteers using high-tech weapons, is the way to go. Israel, ironically, is an exception. But Israel has a compelling reason to continue with conscription. Israel exists in a violent neighborhood and every Israeli is well aware of that. So conscription is not seen as an unfair disruption, but rather a contribution to keeping everyone in Israel safe from very obvious threats. A small number of Israelis are on active duty with most of the armed forces consisting of former conscripts who remain in the trained and organized reserves for over a decade, and never forget how to be a soldier because the threat was always there for everyone. This system was pioneered by Switzerland and later adopted by Sweden to discourage aggressive neighbors from attacking them. It worked but requires a high degree of popular support to maintain.




Help Keep Us From Drying Up

We need your help! Our subscription base has slowly been dwindling.

Each month we count on your contributions. You can support us in the following ways:

  1. Make sure you spread the word about us. Two ways to do that are to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  2. Subscribe to our daily newsletter. We’ll send the news to your email box, and you don’t have to come to the site unless you want to read columns or see photos.
  3. You can contribute to the health of StrategyPage.
Subscribe   Contribute   Close