Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to World1945. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A Call For Assistance
Topic Started: Aug 30 2008, 06:06 PM (1,052 Views)
South Korea
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Conscript armies have fought well in all the defining wars of the 20th century making light of their effectiveness is frankly insulting to those that fell in the WW1, WW2, Korean and Vietnam war . And show me a single army in modern time were the conscripts made the same amount of money as the society in general. That professionals in those armies sometimes make good money is a different story. The Units sent on overseas missions are mostly either volunteers or professionals (see Swedish deployments from Sinai to Afghanistan).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Argentina
Member Avatar
The Third Way
[ *  *  * ]
Ethiopia
Sep 4 2008, 03:35 PM
You guys are only spending 3% of your GDP on the military.  I'm sorry, but that's not enough.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find me a military that was doing this in 1952.

Three percent is indeed an absurd value, except perhaps for very small nations that have no military to speak of (Panama), or very high GDP nations that have a small military (Japan).

I have a figure from a reliable source that Truman wanted to spend $60 billion on defense in 1952, up 20% from 1951. According to the records, the US GDP was about $350 billion in 1952, which comes out to 17% spent on defense in 1952. The current US budget calls for around 6% of GDP to be spent on defense.
Viva Perón!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
South Korea
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
There is no way that a country can spend that percentage in peacetime without seriously hurting its economy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Argentina
Member Avatar
The Third Way
[ *  *  * ]
South Korea
Sep 4 2008, 04:22 PM
There is no way that a country can spend that percentage in peacetime without seriously hurting its economy.

Actually, mid-1952 the US GDP soared nearly $30 billion. At least that's what the chart that I have shows.
Viva Perón!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
South Korea
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
And in 1954 when the war ended?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Argentina
Member Avatar
The Third Way
[ *  *  * ]
South Korea
Sep 4 2008, 04:34 PM
And in 1954 when the war ended?

Still about the same: $375 billion.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
Viva Perón!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
South Korea
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
You do notice that there was a fall in GDP? And how was that handled by increasing defense budgets?

The answer is that the budget was cut from 14,2% in 1953 to 10,8 in 1955 and this includes MDAP. From what I have seen most countries spend 5-8% often including purchases which we handle separately in W45
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Argentina
Member Avatar
The Third Way
[ *  *  * ]
South Korea
Sep 4 2008, 04:45 PM
You do notice that there was a fall in GDP? And how was that handled by increasing defense budgets?

The answer is that the budget was cut from 14,2% in 1953 to 10,8 in 1955 and this includes MDAP

I don't know the specifics of what they did to the defense budget, except that Eisenhower was against the huge buildup that Truman started and wanted to guard against the "military-industrial complex." So it's natural that the defense allocation fell after he was elected.

But that wasn't my point. My point was to give one illustration of a military budget that we know is being underfunded - in EQ's case, one-half to one-third of what it should be.
Viva Perón!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
South Korea
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
There is no Korean war to fund nor are the US arms deliveries to friendly nations as big as they were OTL
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
South Africa
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
This is going off topic but in a similar subject of GDP that I don't think warrents its own thread, BUT, why are all of our citizens making no money. I know money wasn't what it used to be back in 1950's but shouldn't the GDP/capita be in the tens of thousands for the West, not $3,000-$10,000?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ethiopia
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
There is no Korean War sure. But there was one in Tibet. I think that is neither here nor there though. What do you say?

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-r...ph.php?meas=GDP

In game spending:

UK - 3.685%
France - 3.3%
Sweden - 7.8375
Canada - 2.5%
Germany - 4.18%
Australia - 2.24%
US - 6.1%
PRC - 33% <---Good for what Honsou has done.
USSR - 6.3%

These are almost too low. Especially for what you guys have for assets.

Andi, I can't find reliable numbers on what the Soviet Union was spending on military expenditures in this era. But I strongly, STRONGLY doubt that you have adequate funding there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ethiopia
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
South Africa
Sep 5 2008, 12:33 AM
This is going off topic but in a similar subject of GDP that I don't think warrents its own thread, BUT, why are all of our citizens making no money. I know money wasn't what it used to be back in 1950's but shouldn't the GDP/capita be in the tens of thousands for the West, not $3,000-$10,000?

Nope. Everything is inflated to 1990's dollars. And people weren't making that kind of money back then.

Don't worry, everything is A-OK. Most nations are well ahead of where they were in history. Worst case scenario is being right where you should be.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ethiopia
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
And show me a single army in modern time were the conscripts made the same amount of money as the society in general.


It's not about paying the conscripts the same amount of money. It's the overall personel profile of the military: To include all your officers and highly trained people that you need in a military.

As I've said before, I've done some pretty thurough research, and for modern militaries the average wage for all uniformed people is about the per capita GDP pay. Today it's MORE than that for a modern western military.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
South Korea
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
As I said 5-8% was spent by most countries during the Cold war unless at war with higher spendings in the Middle East and the Soviet Union (and insane spendings in DPRK 20+%)and most countries are buying a lot of arms now in W45 which they dont count as defense spendings here.

But you are the mod and will have to make up your mind
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Great Britain
Member Avatar
Land of Hope and Glory
[ *  *  * ]
South Korea
Sep 5 2008, 12:47 AM
which they dont count as defense spendings here.

Do you mean that people. when doing their budgets, do not count their defence purchases towards their percentage OR that the administrators do not count defence purchases towards the percentage?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · OOC Talk · Next Topic »
Add Reply