Talk:List of countries with highest military expenditures/Archive 3

Proposals for improvement of this list

There have been various complaints that the rules for inclusion on this list are overly vague, and that ranking on this list too frequently becomes more a matter of national pride than of objective reasoning or common sense. In order to improve this list, I would make the following proposals:

As of now there is no objective outside list that we can use that details national military expenditures in dollar terms. The CIA, in particular, no longer gives this detail. While SIPRI have created a list that covers most if not all states internationally, but cannot be copied per non-free content concerns. We thus have no default source for this list, no source that we can fall back on if we are unable to find any details online - which is likely to happen frequently. Further, the data we do have frequently includes different things and comes from different years: we encourage people to compare figures when the comparison is not statistically meaningful.

As such, it is likely impossible to create a complete and objective list in dollar terms that meets Wikipedia rules. Proposal One is that the list under the heading Charts by country or organization should be removed from this article entirely as probably unmaintainable.

Proposal Two is that the rules for this list should be tightened up, so that it is absolutely clear what is acceptable and what is not:

• ISO 3166-1 should be adopted as an ideal inclusion criterion. The exceptions should be:

• Those states that are largely unrecognised (Kosovo, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland and so on), which should be included unranked if sources are available.
• Uninhabited entities should be excluded.
• Those entries that we can demonstrate rely exclusively on another power for their military expenditure should be excluded.
• Entities for which there is no sourced data should be excluded.

• Figures from any year should be included, provided that the year for the data is given, and provided that there is a reasonable expectation that the figure could be updated at some point in the future. No entry should add together (or be calculated based on) figures from different years.
• A separate list should be drawn up to give combined-total military expenditures for members of organisations that frequently conduct peacekeeping or other combined operations together. This should include organisations such as NATO, the EU, the AU, the UN and so on, if reliable sources can be found. Reliable sources in this case should explicitly give the combined total expenditure of the organisation, and should not rely on figures created by Wikipedians by adding figures from different years together.
• The world figure should be removed and added to the wording at the top of the list by country.

What do people think? Pfainuk talk 13:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do consider the two to be mutually exclusive. Plainly, we can't tighten up inclusion criteria on a list that no longer exists. Pfainuk talk 18:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no objection after a week, I have gone through with my first proposal. Pfainuk talk 08:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of what is going to happen, Bro5990 and others have no intention what so ever to enter into any discussions because that changes the rank of their country. Your proposals will be reverted over and over until you give up, (or until it places their country where they feel it should be).

The page will be just as much of a mess as it always was, the same garbage will be added from time to time. FFMG (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe - but I think it's worth a try at least. If editors persistently refuse to come to talk it may be worth trying to get some neutral admin involved. Pfainuk talk 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think proposal two would be the more efficient as some have implemented the list which has now been removed in other articles. I recommend putting it back and making sure ALL is in order and cleaned up. Single handedly deleting a list without debate seems rather childish IMO. -- SuperDan89 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Most countries have no references, the references are often disputed, the exchange rates change all the time, whatever expenditures can be sourced are not all from the same years.

So, how would you make sure that, 'ALL is in order'? FFMG (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I find your accusations that my actions were "rather childish" inappropriate and probably uncivil. I offered debate - and waited eight days between making the proposal and deleting the list, which is plenty of time for anyone who disagreed with me to argue their point (it's longer than we allow for AFD or RM). No-one did. Silence does imply consent on Wikipedia. If no-one objects to a proposal, then naturally there will be no debate and you can expect the proposal to go through.

Now, as FFMG says, how, in your opinion, can we make sure it's "all in order"? My second proposal is a starting point to how the list could remain in the article - FFMG raises good points that are not adequately addressed in the proposal - and would need to be addressed before we could go through with it IMO (particularly with respect to exchange rates). If you want a debate, let's have a debate. Pfainuk talk 19:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A list with all nations should be included, with their budget in their own currency. and only those with recent (3 year old figures)from 2007 - present should be included, not those from 2003 etc etc........I am user Bro btw 193.1.57.42 (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

its pathetic pople removing the list out of national pirde it realy dosent matter 193.1.57.42 (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting accusation. Doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, though - my country is lower, not higher, on the lists that remain than on the list that I removed.

I don't think it would work to use countries' own currencies. Such figures would be impossible to compare with one another - which is surely much of the benefit of having a list. Most of the figures would be meaningless to most readers. We wouldn't get rid of the exchange rate problem, we'd just shift it on to the reader, who would have to do a fair bit of their own research just to understand the figures we'd be giving them. I don't see any benefit in including a list that would require so much interpretation. Pfainuk talk 22:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure it should contain the Dollar amount — but also the amount in native currency and maybe even the date for the exchange rate for verifiability. Lars T. (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This is possible, but still leaves us with several problems to overcome. What date do we pick an exchange rate from, for example? In the case of Financial Year 2008-09 in the UK, some of the money will have been spend in July 2008 when the pound was worth $2, and other money will have been spent in January 2009 when the pound was only worth $1.35.

There's no point in using up-to-date exchange rates - indeed it would be a bad idea in many cases as large shifts in currency values have not been unusual over the last few years. Duelling exchange rates would lead to very unstable list, and would likely end up in the sort of nationalist editing that we're trying to get rid of. And if we're giving a value for a Financial Year running April-April in 2008-09 then we can't really then go off an compare based on an exchange rate for December 2009 or 2010. In several cases, the listed expenditure was planned rather than actually delivered (as several listings were for 2010). Is this allowed, and in this case, what exchange rate date do we use?

Further, because the data used came from several years, I would note that you cannot compare data from one country in 2009 and data from another country in 2007 - let alone the dates such as 1999, 2002 and 2003 that the list had before. Countries engage in and withdraw from conflict and peacekeeping missions frequently, and so any conclusions you come up with based on such a comparison will be gibberish at best. And it's better if we don't encourage our readers to engage in gibberish under the impression that it makes sense.

When it comes down to it, this list was originally populated based on the CIA World Factbook, meaning that we could leave all the vital decisions to the CIA. Now that the CIA does not publish this data, it seems odd to me to expect that we can carry on regardless without any replacement source. Pfainuk talk 17:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be a list with % spending/GNP, not GDP. More accurate measurement of the peoples wealth and not the territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.206.233 (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The list should have around or over 100 countries, not just 10. And it should include EU. 83.108.209.19 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

partial contradiction in UK and defence spending articles

The article on the United Kingdom says that it is the country with the THIRD highest defence spending. The defence spending page lists it as 4th.

Which one is the more accurate / more recent figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torinarg (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are outdated. 2008 SIPRI (in Reference) Updates

http://datafinder.worldbank.org/military-expenditure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.180.210 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Bare URL

I changed the percentage of Canadian spending "percentage by GDP" to 1.4, but I regret I could not find anything on the help pages which taught me how to make a proper citation of ref #3. If someone could link me to the help page, or create the proper citation, it would be greatly appreciated. Jmfriesen (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong GDP percentage for Georgia?

In the list of countries in order of expenditure by % of GDP states that Georgia spends 0.4% of GDP on the military however on the Georgian military main page it states that Georgia spends 4% of GDP which would make more sense consider the tension between the russian federation and its recent conflict with abakhazia and south ossetia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.234.127 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

SIPRI

SIPRI figures are totally wrong and are a contradiction. For example its 2009 Year book for defence spending in 2008 states France spends $65.7 billion. Yet at the same time SIPRIs 2009 database for 2008 states France spends $52.5 billion!

I think SIPRIs figures should be removed, they are a contradiction to its own figures! Rademire2 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the database states France spends $52.5 billion In constant ( 2005 ) US$ — also note the comment about exchange rates. Lars T. (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I should also add SIPRI is a very well (probably the most) respected institution for releasing figures related to military expenditures. If anybody has the newest Yearbook on their hands, they might also want to expand the list to include countries outside the top 15. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't think SIPRI is that accurate, it contradicts its own figures and I have never seen it quoted by any top officials to represent military expenditure. For example the French military budget includes billions for the National Gendarmerie and billions for veterans affairs. The result being the actual fighting force of the French military has a considerably smaller budget than SIPRI gives. Also France doesn't buy allot of its military weapons in USD$s, France uses Euros and 99% of its defence budget is spent in Euros, thus the USD$ figure is useless and is not relevant. Rademire2 (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Now this is a much better source, [[1]] Its sourced from the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2008) and is often quoted by top officials, especially in the United Kingdom and United States. I think its worth including in the artical. As well as SIPRI. Rademire2 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

SIPRI corrects for those discrepancies that you raise and of course a single currency has to be used when comparing countries to each other. Regarding your issue with the "inconsistencies" when you dig deeper, they are really not so as you can see SIPRI's website database uses In constant ( 2005 ) US$ (as opposed to the values in the current Yearbook) as was previously mentioned by Lars. Again, just to reiterate, SIPRI's figures are well respected and frequently cited by arms control specialists and defense analysts. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the IISS figures? I feel it is best to use more that just one source, we should use SIPRI's and the IISS's figures. Readers can then have a wider range of valued and accurate infomation on defence spending. Plus the IISS's figures are used by the United States Government! Rademire2 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

After checking the IISS site it seems to be very informative and in line to what this article is trying to convey, good find. Does the IISS's have any figures we can use from their website or do you have to buy the 2010 book? lol would be good to finally update after the out of date 2008 SIPRI figures. SuperDan89 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Would one care to peruse the newest The Military Balance 2010 report from the IISS? The link you cited is somewhat outdated. I would like to see their methodology and sources. Your link seems to suggest it uses the DoD as the source or may be an amalgam of two or more sources. Also, I have not come across any recent publication that cites these "IISS estimates" as reliable sources but there are numerous ones that cite SIPRI as reliable figures. But I am open if more info is provided. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Stupid

Why is European Union listed as 0.7% - 4.3%? Instead of giving figures for Malta and Greece, why don't you silly Wikipedians just divide the military expenditure of the 27 states by the GDP of the same states? I guess that's too much for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.229.73 (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

SIPRI year book 2010

Any one have the latest year book? Recon.Army (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Methodological Failures

This problem was sort of addressed in a haphazard way above.

Does the table imply that current, rather than constant, expenditure prices were used? And then they used some form of market conversion (which is... weak). SIRPI or whatever it's called also includes expenditure in constant 2005 prices. However, that same institute, to my knowledge, does not include figures for "World Spending." I have created my own datasets for a term paper/thesis, and I am wondering how this article came up with that information. I am also wondering why constant prices were not used, as that would seem to be an obviously better standard for comparison versus market exchange rates - which (according to the SIRPI or whatever database) is just another term for current spending. Any thoughts? Michael Sheflin (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, constant 2005 x change rates would be more fitting than current x change rates. However these figures come from SIPRIs yearly year book and as such current x change rates are used to appeal to the market looking for the latest information. But if you want more reliable information on defence spending then you have to check SIPRIs database. Recon.Army (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose we use the constant 2005 x change rates used in SIPRIs database, not only are the figures more consistent but give figures for 170+ nations and the % of GDP spent on defence. We can keep SIPRIs yearly year book figures as they too are valuable, but we need a list for more than just 15 nations. Recon.Army (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle but I don't think we would want to include the exchange rates, in that using a constant dollar unit allows the best possibility for cross-comparison, rather than comparing X Egyptian pounds to Y British Pounds to Z Sudanese Pounds.  ? 41.232.88.203 (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC) (forgot to log in, sorry) Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

SIPRIs data-base has the military budgets for 170+ nations caculated in constant 2005 USD$s. I suggest we use it. Recon.Army (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

EU figures

Do we include EU figures? Recon.Army (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth including them. It might also be worth including NATO figures too. Space25689 (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Added EU and NATO. Finished the table, at least now 153 nations are listed, a vast increase from the previous 15!. The table uses constant 2005 market exchange rates for the 2008 budgets, which also makes the figures much more consistent as opposed to current exchange rates. Have to wait until later this year when the database is updated and includes 2009 budgets. Recon.Army (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Are the EU and NATO figures in 2005 constant dollars? It appears that the world figure is in 2008 currency as the figure is exactly the same as the Top 15 list that is in 2008 dollars. So I will remove the world figure. Could someone verify if the EU and NATO figures are the 2005 or 2008 dollars. BlackHades (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

EU and NATO are in 2005 USD. Recon.Army (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You two, shouldnt The EU figures be placed below the US defnece budget? EU budget is smaller. 194.46.229.238 (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The EU figure isn't ranked. G.R. Allison (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Top 15 list with 2008 figures and exchange rates should have priority over the list using 2005 exchange rates

Suggestion to place Top 15 list that is using 2008 military budget figures and exchange rates on top over the list that's adjusted for 2005 currency. Up to date figures should have priority. Any objection to this? BlackHades (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither list should have priority, both are accurate and up to date as of SIPRIs 2009 year book and 2009 database. However it is best to have the complete list of 153 nations military budgets and % of GDP spent on defence at the forefront of the article due to the fact it is complete with all infomation. Constant 2005 exchange rates does not mean the list is not up to date, but is simply a common practice for any professional organization even for the IMF. Recon.Army (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, just keep the complete list at the top. Its got almost every nation listed and gives an accurate % of GDP spent on defence with a like-wise accurate defence expenditure figure. Top 15 list only has 2008 x change rates, which doesn’t make it any more up to date. 2005 x change rates prevent rising and falling market x change rates from causing un-realistic figures. For example, Chinese currency gained against the dollar in 2008 due to the crisis (dollar fell). But Chinas defence budget didn’t rise 30% as exchange rates suggested. The euro fell against the dollar in 2008, but the French budget wasn’t cut. Constant 2005 x change rates keep on top of such problems and result in real expenditure. Remember France uses euros on its defence spending not dollars, so even if the euro falls vs the dollar is doesn’t affect French military spending. China spends its own currency on defence spending not dollars, so if the Chinese currency gains against the dollar it doesn’t affect Chinese defence spending as for China its defence budget is still the same. 2005 constant prices reflect this, IMF as Recon.Army said does the same and so do other organizations, including banks. I would of thought that the French and Russian military budgets would of been above England though. Especialy France. I know we are above England in top 15 figures. 194.46.229.238 (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

England? Where in the article or its sources does it say England? You mean the United Kingdom, England is only one part of the country. Christ... it's 303 years since the 1707 act of union, catch up my friend. G.R. Allison (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Its ok the way it is. Recon.Army (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

North Korea

Where are the number on North Korea, who are thought to spend more of their GDP on the military than any other country?

213.93.101.238 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Eritrea

supposedly spends 20% of GDP, but GDP on country page and military spending on this page don't make 20% When ranking by % GDP it should be at the top but is somewhere in the middle of the list 188.221.161.189 (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Population

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

Agreed. It would be nice if various different statistics were consolidated into one list, for example, GDP, Population, Oil Consumption, CO2 emmissions, etc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.99.70.46 (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SIPRI Military Expenditure Database update

Note SIPRI will update their Military Expenditure Database upon which the first table is based on June 3, 3010. So an update would certainly be appropriate. I've already updated the top 15 list in the Yearbook 2010. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering how do you know this information is for the SIPRI Yearbook 2010? The pdf link says nothing about being used in a Yearbook only that they are 2008-2009 figures. SuperDan89 (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have found nothing about Bermuda in the database. Should we remove it from the list? Guinsberg (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed it. Guinsberg (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Purchasing Power Parity

There should be another sortable column listing military expenditures by GDP adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity. This would be useful, for instance, when we consider that the USA spent $665 billion on military expenditure and China spent $98 billion, but with the lower cost of goods and labour in China, the Chinese could have achieved a lot more with there $98 billion than the US could have with the same figure. Therefore, adding a column of expenditures by PPP could help put the relative spends into better perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.227.26 (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point. But doesn't defense budget also include the purchase of weapons? China buys, or at least has until recently bought, many weapons from Russia. In the case of interstate trade, nominal GDP values are the ones of relevance. Guinsberg (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To build wepons, China must import many materials needed to build those wepons, i.e steel for ships is just one example. Also China must import Oil to fuel those ships. And when importing, it spends USD($). PPP is a poor mans way of feeling rich, or important.

British soilders on average earn $35,000 by average basic MoD wages. Thats aprox a basic $7 Billion per year spent on troops wages every year out of the UK defence budget. (dont include officer wages that can go up to $100,000 per year). Basic Russian military wage is $20,000 for soilders, thats atleast $20 billion Russia spends on paying its soilders every year. (dont include officer wages that can exceed $120,000 per year).

PPP dont mean shit in defence terms, the pure size of Russias 1,040,000 strong active military force takes up a nice chunk of Russias military expenditure. Recon.Army (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing to note is that countries rarely spend more than like 10%~20% of their annual military budget for importation of military equipment from foreign sources. A vast portion of a country's defense budget is for internal consumption, which indeed affects the true output of a military budget quite a lot. Ambassador (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well nations like India with a good GDP PPP will spend up to 40-50% of their defence budget importing military equiptment from foreign nations. Even alot of military equiptment built in India is actualy a foregin product but just built under licence with a good amount of the money leaving india and not staying in India. India also buys its raw materials such as steel and oil from foreign nations. 194.46.171.178 (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What about North Korea?

North Korea isn't listed, and I they have a sizable army. Can their data be added, perhaps separately via a separate source if needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.33.55 (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

I suspect this edit by IP 99.249.74.240 may be vandalism, as it shows the typical pattern of just switching two countries in the list (Serbia and Slovakia). But the SIPRI site appears to not be working right now, so I can't verify and won't revert until I have. If I forget, please someone else look at it. --Anderssl (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Annual Update

Rather than replacing the numbers each year, might the annual update instead involve either the addition of columns or the creation of a new article, since it seems a shame to lose all this interesting information. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Eritrea not sorted correctly when using percent of GDP.

It appears to be alphabetical instead of numerical. Since Eritrea is the only country with more than 9.9%, it seems that Eritrea is the only country out of order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomv (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Two North Koreas

One is "NorthKorea" and one is "North Korea" one shows no data, the other shows data + a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.79 (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sort by GDP does a text sort

Sorting the table by percent of GDP sorts the numbers as if they were text, placing 4.x% ahead of 11.y%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.236.250 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Several users have made many edits to this article, that is way off its source. Some admin should roll back and lock it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jørgen88 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

European Union

I think a row for the EU is nice to have. Something to compare, because the countries differ so much in size.

The absolute number is just the sums of the 27 EU member states from that very table. For GDP I took a 2008 value from the history of the corresponding GDP List Article. best --Erlenmayr (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion this is OK. However, I think you need to put a footnote on the GDP percentage where you explain which GDP value you have used - e.g., the IMF or the CIA one? --Anderssl (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The European Union is not a country, and it would be irrelevant to put the sum of 27 EU member states. You have a stronger argument for putting NATO as a sum, but for EU, that would be more of a stretch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the NATO figure should also be included, but can't see why the EU figure should be irrelevant. The EU does have some degree of defence cooperation - admittedly not very effective - but this figure is relevant knowledge in that context. --Anderssl (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The EU should be removed. The sum of the 27 EU member states is meaningless as military expenditure and military deployment is a matter for member states. If an EU figure was to be included, it should be the figure for the military expenditure of the Union itself (i.e. the Common Security and Defence Policy), not a combined figure of member states.

There are various other issues with adding together bits of data, such as whether the figures are all calculated on the same basis as one another (in the matter of what they include as "military"; in the matter of what time period is being used). The use of the SIPRI database may lessen this, but it is unlikely to remove it.

I'd also note that the status quo suggests that this is a single-source list. No entity should be included that is not in the single source, and I don't see any evidence from the source that this figure is in there.

As such I have removed it. Pfainuk talk 18:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposal. The European Union is irrelevant, since you can basically add up any supra-national organization that "wants" to federalize, but EU is still ineffective as a single unit since it doesn't have a system like NATO.Phead128 (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The data/headings don't make sense.

I don't get the two lists that we have here, the "SIPRI Military Expenditure Database" and "SIPRI Yearbook 2010" but looking at the source, http://milexdata.sipri.org/, I only see data from 2010 with 2009 US dollar used.
The way I see it, one of the list needs to be removed , (probably the second one), and the 'main' list needs to be updated to reflect that the data is from 2010 with 2009 US$.
Any thoughts on that? FFMG (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems having both lists, as long as exactly the same numbers are used as in the source. Jørgen88 (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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

The "Gendarmerie Nationale" and the National Police (the two French police forces) are not financed, nor controlled by the French Ministry of Defence but by the French Ministry of the Interior (more or less the equivalent of the United States Department of Justice or of the Home Office in the UK), despite the fact that they do have a military status.

In 2011, the budget of the French Ministry of the Interior is 24.56 billion euros ($35 billion) and most of it will be spent on police (16 billion euros).

(Source: Expenditures of the French Ministry of the Interior for the year 2011)

--mouloud47 (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated Graph of Military Expenditures by Country

I made this graph using 2010 SIPRI and US DoD budget data. The graph of the top 5 military budgets (with green bars) on the main page is generated by data in the table, but the data are out of date. Either the table should be updated, or this graph should be substituted, as the numbers have changed substantially since 2009.

--Reggie.fact (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Anderssl (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Add data from CIA World Factbook?

Another editor added a link to the CIA World Factbook, claiming it gives different numbers for percentage of GDP. Maybe we should consider adding those data to the table, or in a separate table? No damage in having multiple data sources, such as in articles like List of countries by GDP (nominal) and similar. --Anderssl (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the CIA World Book is that the data is from different years, most of them over 4 years old.Lars T. (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Per capita defence budget

Looking at the figures the per capita defence expenditure of US is 2225 USD, for India it is USD 29, we should have a table for that too, would be very informative. All figures based on Wikipedia.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable whopping military spending for some countries.

Okay, let's see.

Afghanistan's GDP (PPP) is about $25 billion. Afghanistan's nominal GDP is about $15 billion.

Yet, Afghanistan can afford to spend about $11.6 billion on defense in 2009? And according to the entry, $11.6 billion in military spending constitutes 1.8% of a $15/$25 billion (nominal or PPP) economy?

This isn't the first time where military spending figures have been arbitrarily manipulated on this page. Either that, or some people failed math.

Assuming that this figure factors in US military aid, which together with economic aid constituted about $4 billion in 2010, it is impossible for such a high spending figure anyway. Assassin3577 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoa that sounds logically impossible. I'd probably believe it if it were North Korea or Myanmar, but Afghanistan's seems like just stretching the truth! Ratibgreat (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

According to this latest Pajhwok Afghan News report: "Wardak said a full-fledged national security force, including army and police, would account for about $5 billion a year after the withdrawal of foreign troops in 2014.

"At the present level of the security environment we are facing, it will be about $5 billion a year."

— Abdul Rahim Wardak, Afghan Defense Minister

This mentions "Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 funding level: 11.6b"

May be you are not familiar with the NATO rebuilding of the Afghan military and that nearly all the fundings come from the United States Department of Defense.--Jorge Koli (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical data?

It would be great to have historical data on this page (or perhaps a diff. page). http://www.sipri.org/databases seems to have data going back to 1988, but earlier data would be useful as well. Does anyone have access to such data? Thanks BWP1234 (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

China data???????

Chinese currency rising 40% during the past several years, 110 billion dollars of China military spending times 60% equal to 66 dollars only...119.85.246.98 (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ecuador?

Can't find Ecuador. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SojerPL (talk • contribs) 15:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merge: Per Capita Expenditure List into Combined List

I propose we merge List of countries by military expenditures per capita into List of countries by military expenditures, as an extra column in the list. This would allow the combined list to be updated from the same source(s) at the same time. twilsonb (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. --Anderssl (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposal. I'd also like to see a world map representing military expenditure per capita. Jrvz (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I support, having two lists is unneccesary, and should be combined into one for better presentation purposes.Phead128 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I support, I don't see why there is a separate article for such a short list. It could be easily merged wioth the other as an extra, as it was said. Souris2005 (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I support; it would improve both lists, and there's no reason for this short one to have its own page. nhinchey (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Support, for the same reasons mentioned above. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but the question is, who will bell the cat? Ratibgreat (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is part of the Campus Ambassador assignment of User:Shrutimehta095. I have applied for taking over the stewardship of this article from User:Bilby if he has no objection. If stewardship is granted, I am willing to help User:Shrutimehta095 to merge this article. If that is not acceptable, then I will do it myself as part of normal editting. AshLin (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

it shouldn't be merged, it is two different topics. 188.50.104.75 (talk) 6:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

support merging both into global military expenditure. Lycurgus (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's enough support above to perform the merge, as lists articles are deprecated suggest the general topic be created and both merged into it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The list is full of errors

After seeing this edit by an IP, which found a lot of countries in the wrong order in the main list, I did some random checks and found that the list is full of errors. I started correcting the countries I found wrong, but there are so many errors it is probably better to start at the top and clean the entire list - and I don't have time to do all. I have checked the first 5 for now, would appreciate help to go over the rest. Post a comment here when you've checked a batch. --Anderssl (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Checked and corrected entries 6-25. I think I found errors in roughly 2/3 of the figures. --Anderssl (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Checked and corrected entries 26-35. --Anderssl (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Checked and corrected 36-50. Going forward I'll just put the update in the edit summary, check there to see how far I've gotten if you want to pitch in. --Anderssl (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

All done. The entire list from the SIPRI database has now ben thouroughly checked and cleaned of errors. DO NOT alter the list without checking thouroughly against the database first!!! I suggest automatically reverting all unexplained edits to the list. --Anderssl (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

SIPRI yearbook or database?

I object to that reasoning in the edit summary - because one list shows more countries does not give it precedence. Even if it did, it is no basis upon which you can "undo" any good-faith edit I made to the article. I.e restoring the citation for the SIPRI database figures, expanding the lead and fixing the in-list notes.

Onto the subject of which "list" should go first, the SIPRI Yearbook arguably takes precedence. Why? In encyclopaedic terms The SIPRI database consists of raw, unprocessed facts and figures (or data), the SIPRI Yearbook is the communication of interpreted data (or information). Information always takes precedence over data. Besides, The figures published in the SIPRI Yearbook are their official figures and are often cited by other authoritative sources. Also, it is only practical to put the smaller list towards the start of the article....readers would most likely over-look the list if it were left towards the bottom of a long article.

I accidently left-out the bar chart. I only claim to be human. Talk^Woe90i 21:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Another thing, the SIPRI Yearbook uses current market exchange rates which makes it more a consistent and current interpretation of actual defence spending.Talk^Woe90i 22:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. But for some reason, I can't make the database table sort by the per capita numbers. You can sort by the % of GDP figures or the absolute figures, but not the per capita figures. Any idea how to fix that? --Anderssl (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I found this frustrating. Could it be that it doesn't work because figures are missing?86.6.184.62 (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't notice it didn't work work sorry. It was only a very minor thing to sort - but very easy to miss. Having figures missing for some entries will never cause a problem. Cheers for pointing it out! Talk^Woe90i 13:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 yearbook

Just wanted to know if this article can add the "17 April: World military expenditure data" released from SIPRI immediately, or do we have to wait to get access? Just check their web-site at that date. 83.108.197.189 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorting problem

If you sort the second table by one of the columns other than ranking, and then switch it back to sort by rank, it is messed up. It lists 1, 10, 101, etc. 62.84.71.145 (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Source for per capita figures

What is the source for the per capita figures in the second table? As it reads right now, the article states that the figures in that table come from the SIPRI database, but I can't find any per capita figures there. --Anderssl (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably some noob that took an estimate using budget/population. Jørgen88 (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The per capita figures for UK are definitely wrong: 62 Million people who spend 55 billion $ doesn't equate to 430$ per person but the double amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.208.103.197 (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone had vandalised the UK and Russian figures at some point. I've updated France, UK, and Russia. David (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

European Union

Perhaps adding a total of the European Union? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.130.195 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why? It doesn't have a military nor a military expenditure. Otherwise, you might as well add up and show the total expenditure for countries beginning with S... David (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

India

As Per the below SIPRI'S page link

http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex, go to 'Download the SIPRI factsheet on military expenditure for 2011'

India 's defense expenditure for 2011 is $48.9 as opposed to Saudis' $48.5. India should be ahead of the Saudis in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.165.71 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems legit. But two lists, both giving 2011 figures...i will wait for opinions of other editors. Anir1uph (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tags not needed

The tags, Outdated and Cleanup are not applicable. The 2011 data is the latest SIPRI data. The 2012 data will be released at the end of 2012. The definition Wikipedia:Cleanup is not applicable here, and this is a list. On top of that, there is no talk page discussion after adding the templates to this page. If there is no objection, i shall remove the templates from the article. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Word "defense" is biased

Military can also be used for offense, obviously. Changed the first line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.2.121 (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

North Korea

Where's north korea on these lists? i'd imagin their expenditures by % of gdp would be higher than any other country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.121.197 (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering, too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.129.15 (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's because North Korea doesn't actually reveal its military expenditures, hence why they don't appear on these lists. Also remember to sign one's posts on a talk page by typing in ~~~~ after your post, that way we know who we're talking to. – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I also missed North Korea in this article. Perhaps some estimates could be included? Or at least "NA". It's total absence on the page is kind of startling. ArticunoWebon (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nato

can you put them on here maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.93.100 (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess that might be difficult as NATO is not a country, it a military bloc, and SIPRI annual release does not mention NATO separately. Doing so would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Anir1uph (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source is good enough for NATO to be added to the list. Jørgen88 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The tables in this page source from only the SIPRI released lists. The sections are titled "SIPRI Yearbook 2011" and "SIPRI military expenditure database". Unless NATO is mentioned on a SIPRI-released list, i oppose addition of NATO to this page. I hope you see my reasoning. Regards, Anir1uph (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand Anir1uph's position but I think other reliable sources could and should also be added even if it's under other sections with different titles. ArticunoWebon (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Rank-order column (1,2,3) could be static and separate

See Help:Sorting#Initial alphabetical sort versus initial sort by rank order. See the section about adding a separate, static rank column (1,2,3) next to a table. This makes the table easier to maintain and update. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

San Marino

Why is San Marino not included, military expenditures were just over €8.3 million ($10.7 million) in 2012.1 B-watchmework (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Added San Marino. B-watchmework (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Eritrea

According to the CIA webpage at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html?countryName=Eritrea&countryCode=er&regionCode=afr&rank=8#er Eritrea military spending was at 6.3% GDP in 2006. Is there another reference for the quite high 20.9% number? I think this value should be removed or revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.249.141 (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

I think the data presented in the SIPRI military expenditure database table are inconsistent. Take one example:

Rank Country % of GDP Per capita ($) 9 Germany 1.4% 593 24 Greece 2.3% 1,230

This would imply that Greece's GDP per capita is higher than Germany's, which is clearly not the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

TSawala (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no, it doesn't imply that at all. Take this hypothetical example (with simple numbers) of two countries:

Country A - GDP of $100bn - military expenditure of $2bn - % of GDP therefore 2% - population of 100m - GDP per capita of $1000 - military spending per capita $20

Country B - GDP of $5bn - military expenditure of $1bn - % of GDP therefore 20% - population of 10m - GDP per capita of $500 - military spending per capita $100

Essentially an exaggeration of Germany - Greece. I need not explain further your folly... David (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Table data sorting

The tables in this article do not sort correctly by rank. They sort as if the numbers are text (1,10,100,101,102,...), rather than in numerical order. I don't know how to fix this.

Bitbut (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE - new figures

SIPRI - http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/recent-trends

See the PDF File!

--141.75.249.208 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Outdated info removed (lack of CON)

outdated info table is removed due to lack of CON. it's confusing to put data from one country 1996 and from another country 2006 to the same chart.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

All data is single sourced from SIPRI. Yes there are various inconsistencies regarding age of data, but 90% of the list is current since 2011.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

2011 is outdated as well. And most important, their numbers dont even match with the first table.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The second list is sourced from the SIPRI database and calculates defence budgets on fixed exchange rates from a few years ago. The SIPRI database is updated after they release their yearbook, so just be patient. The first list is sourced from the SIPRI yearbook 2013 and uses current exchange rates which is more accurate. However, the yearbook only ever lists the top 15. As this is a list of countries by military expenditure, the second list sourced by the SIPRI database serves as a reference and a representation of pretty much every country in the world and is therefore valuable. For example, from looking at the second table you can get a fairly accurate and fairly good idea of how much Ireland spends on defence and where in relation to the world their budget stands. I hope this makes things more clear for you.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you telling me things what I already know? You have duplicate and false info for the first 15 countries. I'm going to remove the second template until there is a WP:consensus.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

How could I possibly know what you already know? Anyway, from what I gather from the archives of this discussion page there is already an existing consensus to have the two tables single sourced from SIPRI. So no, you would need to gain consensus to remove the second table. For now, I will keep my eye on this article. Additionally, could you please clarify what it is exactly you don't agree with regarding the second table? I ask this because presently, the second table is inline with fundamental Wikipedia policies. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The part which I dont agree is, to have 2 different data for 1 country. (let's say China 129 ?, 166 ?). Show me the exact archieve number and paragraph which gives consensus to have "two tables" , one from 2011, one from 2013, sourced from SIPRI. I will keep my eye on you, and if you fail to provide the consensus of two tables from 2011 and 2013 shown on the same article, I am going to remove the second table until there is a consensus.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the data from Greece is outdated. Greece is in recession and doesn't spend 7 billion $/year on military anymore. The second table is completely misleading.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand what the issue Hakan Erbaslar has here - the first list is for the top 15 defence spenders and is directly derived from the annual SIPRI Yearbook. It is the most accurate resource. However it is only for the top 15. Therefore the problem is how to compile the remaining countries into a list - you can either use a single course (eg SIPRI) or allow editors to add data for individual countries from different sources. The latter will just end up with editing wars and wrong information. (And indeed information from across various years.) Using a single source is therefore the only way forward. Now, if Hakan can come up with a better source than SIPRI then go ahead... oh but wait, he just wants to remove the list entirely. That would be a ridiculous approach - removing a comprehensive list of countries from a respected organisation (SIPRI).

Regarding the "duplicating" nature of the top 15, this is an issue, but not a major one. The article clearly states how the two lists differ - one is from a specific yearbook and is for 2012 budgets, the other is from the wider database and is for 2011 in the main.

Unless Hakan can come up with a better solution than the present system used (and which has been used by Wikipedia for many years now) - or the "baby throwing the toys out he pram" option of deleting the second list enitrely - then we should continue with the present system. And remove this ridiculous "misleading informatin" banner he's just put on. David (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, sod being nice about this, Hakan's "I will keep my eye on you, and if you fail..." approach to an established editor (above) combined with his (none existent) editing history just reveals that he's here only to cause trouble. David (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A) Where is the consensus he claimed, to include two conflicting tables from 2011 and 2013 ? Or you think he doesn't need to show one because of his high standing in the community?Wikipedia has its rules and "long established editors" do not have any right to claim and to do whatever they want. (Read Ownership of articles) All Wikipedia content[1] is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article.

B) Does it meet wikipedia criterias to have 2 conflicting datas for 1 country. (example: China spends $129 billion? , $166 billion on the other?) and putting a "misleading banner" on top of it, is "ridicilous" ?

C) How do you explain the misleading outdated info for many countries in the second table. (example: Greece doesn't spend 7 billion $/year anymore? , pre-crisis data)

D) Do you speak english? I never said that the organization is not respected. Where did you get this idea from_?

E) The rule is clear. As long as there is no consensus for the conflicting data, it will be removed until you come up with a new offer. (WP:CON)--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'm only going to respond once to you as you clearly aren't here for any constructive discussion or input into the article, and if you go ahead and delete the table I will take this matter to Admin who will likely promptly ban you and lock the page for a while.

A - have you read through the three Archive pages of this talk page?

B - there is no conflict. One table is for 2011 and the other for 2013. The article clearly explains this.

C - it is not misleading. It may be out-of-date, but not misleading.

D - considering you don't understand the concept of "misleading" I think it's a bit rich you suggesting I don't know my own language.

E - no, there is no such rule. And it's just you who wants to delete the table.

As I've said, do not even think about deleting this table or I will take this up as vandalism with Admin. I have been a significant editor of Wikipedia for 10 years now and have had to deal with this sort of nonsense time and time again. Bit of a veteran really. David (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A - I have read through archieve pages. I didn't find any consensus to add conflicting tables of 2011 and 2013 to the same article. I gently asked to show me it, but you can't. you failed to build consensus. (WP:CON)

B - (example: China spends $129 billion? , $166 billion on the other?) no conflict? hmm..

C - It's definetely misleading because the numbers changed a lot since then. So the spending/year table is misleading. (example: Greece)

D - I never said this organization was not respected. I feel sorry that you don't even understand your own language.

E - It's a pity that during those 10 years you didn't even learn this Wikipedia rule (Read Ownership of articles) Your standing in the community is irrelevant when it comes to editing an article. You do not own this article, and your opinion is not superior to anyone else. Any edit you don't like is "vandalism"? Stop making a fool out of yourself.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to quickly add something from the Wikipedia:Consensus page:

"Editors usually reach consensus as a natural product of editing. After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it." And: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."

The fact that that second table had been on there for a long while (although I don't know exactly how long), shows that there was a consensus for keeping it. So it is for the person removing it to provide reasons and persuade people, not the other way round. Up to now there has clearly been a consensus for keeping the second table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Kookiethebird (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Right now, I am the person, who is disputing the addition of second table, therefore it's not a consensus. There is no such a rule regarding "timing" in the qoute. An earlier editor claimed consensus in the archieve but he failed to show that one, too, and I wonder, why no-one is addressing my concerns on A, B, C, D above. --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User Hakan Erbaslar has no policy issue and his edits (and comments) are POV based. He is ignoring a long established consensus and ignoring the overwhelming support of that consensus here in this discussion. I propose we ignore any further posts he makes here (unless he decides to post any worthwhile comment) and revert any unconstructive edits he makes to the article.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

In comparison, List of countries by GDP (nominal) has four separate tables, some with figures going back to 1993. The consensus on that article supports its current revision. As there is no WP policy against an article including numerous tables single sourced by a reliable, academic and authoritative citation then the current revision of this article (supported by consensus) is absolutely fine. Just thought id mention this.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Antiochus,

• I asked you to show me the established consensus of two conflicting tables 2011 and 2013, from the archieve. I scrolled through the archieve and didn't find any. (am still waiting, but I think you made that up)

• I checked that article has a total different layout and has nothing such as "top 15". List of countries by GDP nominal, is a different article. Last time I checked, this article name is not "GDP nominal". Maybe you don't know which article you are trying to edit?

• Read the posts above, learn what consensus means. (consensus- undisputed edit) but having two conflicting tables is disputed edit and therefore removed. There is no referral to "timing". Please go to consensus page and learn what it means.

• Personal insults, harrassment are your last resort because you lack of arguments? Oh, please shut up. Wikipedia rules say the topic should be discussed and not persons. I clearly see you fail to respond to my concerns on A,B,C,D and E. (because you don't have anything to say about those points?)--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not insulted you but only proposed users to ignore/revert any unconstructive comments/edits you make. Yes, there is an established consensus on this article, go and read through the archives again. Time and time again discussions had raised the issue of WP:VERIFY regarding how the articles table was previously sourced from upwards of 50 different citations. This lead to edit warring and content disputes. The general thrust of the comments suggested a single sourced table with an authoritative citation be wused and SIPRI was the result. The consensus was built over many discussions by many editors over a period of extended time. Thus we now find our-self at this current and accepted revision of the article. Furthermore it is in harmony with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You would therefore need a consensus to remove the table and probably come up with a suitable alternative. Simply blanking half the article is unacceptable and constitutes obvious vandalism... therefore anyone who reverts such edits are exempt from the 3RR.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"Exactly my point. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." No it wasn't exactly your point. You've got things the wrong way round. That table had already been there a long time so can be assumed to have consensus.

"Right now, I am the person, who is disputing the addition of second table, therefore it's not a consensus." But it's not the addition of a second table, because that table had already been there a long time, it's the subtraction of a second table. It clearly had consensus to be there. Kookiethebird (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is locked to common editors and will be updated by an administrator. --Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Then can we please update the article and not have you completely delete the table from the article instead?Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hakan, instead of trying to keep deleting the table, try to assist in updating it instead. BlackHades (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Solved

Qoutation from administrator "Nick;

The issue with Table 2 being out of date can now be solved. The data needed to update table 2 (all countries data) is available now at http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database and this ties in with the data from http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=458# used to complete table 1 (top 15 countries). That should fully resolve all the issues, if both parties can review this data, confirm that by updating Table 2, the issue is resolved, I will unprotect the page and allow you chaps to resume editing it. Nick (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Qoutation from other party "Antiochus the Great";

During our recent "argument" I judged you for being simply an aggressive and unhelpful editor, but now seeing that you can also be a good and helpful contributor I would like to apologise to you (Hakan). So please, lets forget about our differences and be more friendly in future :) Kind regards. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Message from "myself";

Hi. I apologize to Antiochus for all unhelpful language, and I have deleted my earlier offensive comment. I endorse the offer which my administrator Nick has proposed. I hope the issue is solved now.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Hakan, I am glad we have both apologised for our mistakes and now we can move forward much happier. I am a little busy at the moment working on a few other project with some other editors, I hope to be finished soon and will start updating this article in a few days time!Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

USA official numbers

The US official number for FY2013 is $554.2 + $88.5 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. This is a total of $642.7 billion, or a total of ~4.1%.

The official numbers are off, compared to SIPRI. I doubt that the US is understating her military expenditures, so what's going on? Maybe we should have one list from SIRI and another list with the figures reported by each nation?

Karim3343 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't have enough nations reporting the official spending so it would be a rather incomplete list... Strike Σagle 14:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you know which of the top 15 countries do not have official numbers? It all (or most) of the top one's do have official figures then I think we should create a new list next to this one.

Karim3343 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yearbook 2013 would be military spending for FY2012 not FY2013. BlackHades (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

DPRK

No data on north korea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.42.136 (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

North Korea doesn't publish their military expenditures, or so I've been told. Any data on them would be an estimate, at best, and given how closed the country is, the only people who have the kind of data necessary to make a decent estimate are in the intelligence community (the international community, that is, not the US's collection of agencies) and can't talk about it. I'd suggest, however, that a note should be added to the article somewhere recognizing the rather significant hole in the list. (Given North Korea's rather belligerent behavior over the past few years, its a little more relevant to global politics than, say, the Canadian military...this coming from a Canadian.)24.69.217.16 (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Do your guys really believe Russia and China's military spending data is TRUE????

I don't think so, China and Russia official data are bullshit!! Russia Su-27 is far behind electronically equipped Eurofighter which is dubbed 4++ generation jet fighter!219.151.153.142 (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only publish data with sources. If the government that provides the primary source of that data is lying, they can't do much about it unless there's other sources that explain what the lies are and what the real budget is. The numbers make some degree of sense to me - Russia and China have large territories to cover, have much more military activity within their country than the US (When was the last time the US sent tanks in to stop a riot, or had troops in combat within its territory? (China did the former with Tienanmen Square and Russia's had enough problems with Chechnya that they've been doing the latter more or less constantly since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.) China, at least, also has a lot more people to pay than the US does. Raw manpower and the logistics of keeping an army running in large countries, even without Russia's winter issues (they've repeatedly proven they're better than anyone else at surviving the Russian winter, but that doesn't mean they don't have problems dealing with it, too, it just means they get more practice), make for a much more expensive army than the technological expenses of better aircraft and the like (Unless you're the US, which seems to have a supernatural capacity for spending money on weapons) 24.69.217.16 (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Could we get per capita columns added?

Could we get per capita columns added?

Most wikipedia international tables have both gross spending and gross spending per capita.

The 'spending as a percentage of GDP column' doesn't replace this need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.210.133 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

These numbers are making no sense

It is easy to see that US government spending as a percent of GDP is about 40 percent. And it is easy to see that defense is about 50% of the total budget. Following that, we'd expect defense as a percent of GDP to be about 20%.

If so, why is this article showing 4.4%? What on earth is going on?

J1812 (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's quite simple really. Amazingly, a well respected organisation called SIPRI know what they're talking about and you don't. Both your guestimates are wrong. US public expenditure may be about 40% but that's federal, state, city, etc. So federal government expenditure is way less than 40% of US GDP. And 50% is too high a figure for defence as a % of US federal government expenditure. They do spend money on other stuff you know... like debt interest.

It's really very simple to see how the 4.4% figure comes about. What is the US GDP? What is the US defence budget? What percent is that latter figure of the first figure... very basic maths. Your round-a-bout way of thinking is what makes no sense.

Next.... 86.142.29.90 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

" Amazingly, a well respected organisation called SIPRI know what they're talking about and you don't."

If English were your first language you'd know the person was asking a question and you would not answer them with a silly insult. Instead give a proper answer with proper figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.210.133 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ever heard the expression "a stupid answer to a stupid question"? 81.153.232.204 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Understanding the numbers requires knowing the difference between percentage of world's military expenditure, percentage of federal tax spending, percentage of discretionary federal tax spending, percentage of spending relative to GDP. BlackHades (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

SIPRI license

SIPRI's terms and conditions require permission for reproduction of more than 10% of their data set. Did we get this? FOARP (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

European Union, yet again

I have no idea why the EU is continually added to this list. It is problematic for a variety of reasons, but most importantly, because it gives the very false impression that there is some European Union Army. In addition, the EU is not a country, and this is a list of countries. Please stop adding it to the table. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with having either the EU or Nato. No more that including all the Warsaw pact countries if discussing cold war military expenditure. It's informative without suggesting that either are countries - they were unranked. I don't think anyone's going to think there is an EU army no more than there is a Nato one. Footnotes could dispel the impression if necessary. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be here. The military expenditure of the European Union is not $274,213,000,000 or anything like it. $274bn is over 160% of the total EU budget. EU military expenditure is at most the far-smaller cost of administering the Common Security and Defence Policy. The military expenditure for NATO was given as $990,932,000,000; it would not be surprising if NATO has not spent this much money, in total, in its entire history.

If these are aggregated figures, then we must note that the figures would be - statistically speaking - complete twaddle. They would combine different years and different countries as though such comparisons were necessarily meaningful. They are not. I went into far greater detail on this when it was discussed in the past and the facts of the matter remain. Kahastok talk 21:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There's absolutely no point to including the total of EU spending. It represents absolutely nothing, nor any more than any other random aggregation of "countries whose name starts with A" would. If you want to include anything for the EU, find the combined budget for the Eurocorps, the European Gendarmerie Force, etc. The same goes for NATO, as Kahastok has pointed out. Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

IISS figures on defence spending

Currently the article is entirely based on the citations provided by SIPRI. While SIPRI is a highly authoritative and reliable source, I think this article could benefit from additional material, especially from other highly acclaimed defence research institutes such as the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies).

Earlier today I added this table (below) sourced form the 2014 edition of "The Military Balance" published by the IISS. Like SIPRI, it shows the worlds top 15 largest defence spenders for the year 2013. Furthermore, "The Military Balance" is an annual publication too, just like the SIPRI yearbook.

I feel an additional table sourced from an authoritative organisation like the IISS would benefit the article and add to its encyclopaedic value. This would also help address the issue of the article being bias to one organisation as a reference. However a particular IP reverted my edits, his only reason being "Use talk for such edits, discussion needed". To be honest I find this highly unusual as the IP does not appear to have any particular policy issue. Therefore, to avoid any possibility of an edit war, I have decided to take the matter to this talk page and invite the IP to outline any issues he has with my edits.

Rank	Country	Spending ($ Bn.)
	World total	1595.1
1	United States	600.4
2	People's Republic of China	122.2
3	Russia	68.2
4	Saudi Arabia	59.6
5	United Kingdom	57.0
6	France	52.4
7	Japan	51.0
8	Germany	44.2
9	India	36.3
10	Brazil	34.7
11	South Korea	31.8
12	Australia	26.0
13	Italy	25.2
14	Israel	18.2
15	Iran	17.7

Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with your assessment. Furthermore, a verity of wiki articles, like List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and List of countries by credit rating, use multiple sources. Thanks, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia as a source, you have no sources but are using Wikipedia pages for military budgets. You need academic sources to verify each countries budget.--198.23.83.227 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Buzzards, much appreciated. @198.23.83.227, nobody is using Wikipedia as a source, certainly not me. You reverted my edits twice and told me to discuss my edits on the talk page (and now I have). Both times when you reverted my edits you would have seen that the citation I placed in the article was from the IISS (here The Military Balance 2014: Top 15 Defence Budgets 2013). The IISS is a reliable source. So now that we have cleared up this issue, and as far as I can tell you have no further policy issues against my edits, can I assume you will undo your revert of my edits? Thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@198.23.83.227. You haven't replied since, so I will go ahead and make the changes myself. Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you make all the changes yourself on Wikipedia to pretend your always right, you gotta a lot of free time to POV articles.--69.72.247.204 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@69.72.247.204. POV? No, its called common sense. The World Bank citations give figures for GDP nominal and GDP PPP. They do not give defence spending figures. Now, if you could provide a World Bank citation that gives defence spending figures, then we would all be happy to include it in the article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

the world bank doesnt give figures but its obviously that sipri uses IMF ppp rates which are not updated for a long time

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/faq.htm#q4c

A. The Purchasing-power-parity (PPP) between two countries is the rate at which the currency of one country needs to be converted into that of a second country to ensure that a given amount of the first country's currency will purchase the same volume of goods and services in the second country as it does in the first. In the WEO online database, the implied PPP conversion rate is expressed as national currency per current international dollar. The advantages and disadvantages of using PPP-based exchange rates rather than market exchange rates are discussed in the Finance & Development article "PPP Versus the Market, Which Weight Matters?" (March 2007) and Box 1.2 of the September 2003 World Economic Outlook (WEO). For the latest PPP weights revision, please see Figure 1.16 from Chapter 1 of the April 2008 WEO. For 2003 PPP weights revision, please see Box A2 from the April 2004 WEO. For the 2000 PPP weights revision, please see Box A1 from the May 2000 WEO. The International Comparisons Program (ICP) is a global statistical initiative that produces internationally comparable Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimates. The PPP exchange rate estimates, maintained and published by the World Bank, the OECD, and other international organizations, are used by WEO to calculate its own PPP weight time series. Currently, WEO PPP exchange rates are based on the ICP’s 2005 round but these will be updated upon the release of the 2011 round of estimates. For more information, you can go to the World Bank’s ICP page at http://www.worldbank.org/data/icp.

the worldbank uses updated ppp exchange rates only for OECD countries and Eurostat countries as well as Russia which is the closest country to join it. Thats why you see eastern european EU countries and espacially Turkey and Russia having higher ppp numbers in world bank because they were the first who got their ppp exchange rate updated. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101626562 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEaHyiAIsZE But if you listen to the news you can hear that china and all other countries got their ppp rates updated too, so when WB updates all countries to 2011 ppp rates you will see china and india and especially saudi arabia having bigger gdp.--Crossswords (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of the meaning and purpose of your above post. What does the IMF, World Bank and GDP PPP have to do with "List of countries by military expenditures"? Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Purchasing Power Parity

i feel a new column could be included with the expenditure amounts listed by ppp. The amount of goods and services obtained for a set amount of USD by another country will be different to that obtained for the same amount by the united states. Although the figures quoted here are based on the global reserve (USD) the actual expenditures themselves are mostly in the respective national currencies, (except in the case of international purchases) and so i feel that having another column to sort the values by PPP would add value to the article as it would paint a better picture of the actual value of military expenditure. This issue has been touched upon before but has not had any dedicated thought put into it. i invite feedback and comments. thanks Pvpoodle (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can include PPP without doubt...but do you have a source? ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

my idea was to simply use the sources from List of countries by GDP (PPP), namely the IMF & World Bank. Pvpoodle (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No No we dont convert the figures to PPP ourselves...there are PPP converted figures of SIPRI and probably IISS but I don't have them with me.. @Antiochus the Great do you have them? ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

since the figures here are expressed as % of GDP, and since the IMF / World bank figures are GDP (PPP), it should be a fairly straightforward conversion. i dont think it is OR since both are published figures and we are just collating them. if this is not acceptable we could look for published data. Pvpoodle (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I fear that would be OR....we need published data for adding the table.. ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Australia %

IISS stated % age of gdp surely not correct? 81.170.30.157 (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

SIPRI terms and conditions

I just noticed that permission is required if more than 10% of SIPRIs data set is reproduced. Otherwise we are breaking copyright and reproduction laws. Only 10% of their data set can be reproduced under 'fair use'. This means that the "SIPRI military expenditure database (2012)" table will have to be trimmed down to 10%.

Any thoughts? Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and trim the data set down to 10%. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What about trying to get their permission then? Can an Email be sent asking to publish at least last year's figures? They may allow Wikipedia, I think it's worth a try. --Hibernian (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Is that why the page has been utterly gutted? This is totally unacceptable, are there no other sources available for this? Having the budgets of only the top 15 countries available on Wikipedia is a joke. 192.160.165.63 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There is this... https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html It only shows % of GDP though. 2602:306:8032:50E0:64ED:29E7:D6E5:7772 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia where is crimea?

the wrong map of russia

where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.208.77 (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

In Ukraine, where it should be. Sharkb (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

New SIPRI numbers for 2014, released today

If anyone care to replace the old numbers with the new, then go ahead. I'm not very familiar with how Wikipedia works. Article: http://www.sipri.org/media/pressreleases/2015/milex-april-2015 Fact sheet: http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=496 - 88.90.245.52 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it has been taken care of. Thanks! - 88.90.245.52 (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Bar charts and pie charts

Best practice would see equal weight being given to both the IISS and SIPRI, with both figures being represented in either one of the charts. Der Statistiker's edits are giving undue weight to SIPRI's figures by limiting both charts to only SIRPI and excluding the IISS. This is in violation of WP:UNDUE. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The pie chart is outdated anyway (2013 figures), so it should go. If you insist, I'll remove the 2013 pie chart and leave only the 2014 bar chart. That way, no accusations of WP:UNDUE can be thrown at. ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've replaced the outdated 2013 SIPRI pie chart with a 2014 IISS pie chart that I've just created. That way both the SIPRI and IISS sources are represented in the charts. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking the time and trouble in making a new pie chart! Good job. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Projection for 2045"

Is there really a need for this section? Does military spending 30 years from now really belong in an article about current military spending? If so, why limit it to 2045 instead of 2025, 2065, etc

The article is not specifically about current military spending though. And the reason it's 2045 is because that's the data we have. If you can find other data sets, from other sources or for other years, then by all means add them. Argovian (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"Expenditure" is by definition money that has already been spent. A projected expenditure for 2045 isn't "data", it's nothing but conjecture based on current trends. Should expenditure also be thrown in for 1985 as well? 173.166.156.77 (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Poland budget 2009 is 24,5 bln zloty and is 6,9 bln dollar -currency online 5/4/2009 so 12 bln is fabricated

Poland's GDP is $1.16 trillion PPP. Poland's military expenditures are 2% of the GDP. --Lysy^talk 19:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)