Geopolítica-Geoestratégia-Política de Defesa => Mundo => Tópico iniciado por: Marauder em Junho 24, 2006, 10:10:16 am

Título: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Marauder em Junho 24, 2006, 10:10:16 am
World military spending: Europe down, Middle East up

STOCKHOLM : Record overall military spending in 2005 masked divergent trends across the globe, with expenditure on the rise in the US and the Middle East but on the decline in Europe, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said.

The United States remained the biggest worldwide spender with 48 percent of the 1.118 trillion dollar (885 billion euros) pie and alone accounted for 80 percent of the 33-billion-dollar increase in global spending, it said in its annual report.

But the Middle East was the region with the highest relative spending increase, mostly due to a massive increase in Saudi Arabia's defence budget.

Total military spending numbers for the region would have been even higher if Iraq and Qatar had not been excluded because of inconsistent data, SIPRI said.

Europe was the only region with a decrease in military spending, by 1.7 percent, especially because of western European spending cuts.

The biggest falls were recorded in Italy and Britain, SIPRI said.

Worldwide military spending represented 2.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005, or 173 dollars per capita.

In China, spending was 31.20 dollars per capita, and in India, 18.50 dollars.

This compares to 1,604 dollars of military spending for each American, and 1,430 for each Israeli, SIPRI said.

The 15 biggest spenders accounted for 84 percent of all expenditure. They were, in declining order, the United States, Britain, France, Japan, China, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Spain and Israel.

Military expenditure in Latin America and the Caribbean increased by 7.2 percent in 2005, mostly driven by three big spenders Brazil, Chile and Colombia, who together account for three-quarters of military spending in the region.

Chile's spending was boosted by rising revenues from copper, helping the country's military forces to finance an ongoing modernisation programme.

The pace of the programme means that Chile could by 2010 become the region's first country to possess NATO-standard military forces, SIPRI said.

Chile's increased spending has raised concerns in neighbouring Peru, prompting the creation of an acquisition, modernisation and repair fund for that country's armed forces.

In Venezuela rising government revenues, from oil, have also translated into increased military spending, which saw the region's greatest increase after those of Brazil and Chile.

Despite large procurement deals by Chile and Venezuela "there is little sign of the emergence of competitive arms acquisitions in the region", SIPRI said.

Military spending in Central America, where Mexico accounts for 85 percent of the total, was stable between 2004 and 2005, although figures were distorted by the absence of reliable data from Cuba.
de: ... 25/1/.html (

também na aljazeera  :o ... AAAEA2.htm (
Enviado por: Marauder em Junho 26, 2006, 08:55:13 am
SIPRI Yearbook 2006: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security
(Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute; issued June 12, 2006)
SIPRI’s annual compendium of data and analysis of developments in security and conflicts, military spending and armaments and non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament is launched today.  
Military expenditure, arms production and international arms transfers are all on the rise.  
SIPRI reports that world military expenditure in 2005 reached $1118 billion in current dollars, a 34 per cent rise in the 10 years since 1996. This increase has been accompanied by a 15 per cent rise in the combined arms sales of the 100 largest arms-producing companies.  
SIPRI data on both the volume and financial value of international arms transfers show a sustained increase since 2000–2001. The volume of arms transferred in 2005 was 30 per cent higher than in 2000. Meanwhile, the financial value of the international arms trade has risen from $27–34 billion in 2001 to $44–53 billion in 2004.  
“The continuing rising trend in all aspects of the defence economy shows that defence and security policies have not been adapted to the real challenges of the new security environment”, says SIPRI Researcher Petter Stålenheim.  
SIPRI, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, conducts independent research on armaments, disarmament and international security. SIPRI Yearbook 2006 is published on behalf of SIPRI by Oxford University Press.  
1. Military expenditure  
World military expenditure in 2005 is estimated to have reached $1001 billion at constant (2003) prices and exchange rates, or $1118 billion in current dollars. This corresponds to 2.5 per cent of world GDP or an average spending of $173 per capita. World military expenditure in 2005 presents a real terms increase of 3.4 per cent since 2004, and of 34 per cent over the 10-year period 1996–2005. The USA, responsible for about 80 per cent of the increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for almost half of the world total.  
The process of concentration of military expenditure continued in 2005 with a decreasing number of countries responsible for a growing proportion of spending: the 15 countries with the highest spending now account for 84 per cent of the total. The USA is responsible for 48 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4–5 per cent each. The rapid increase in the USA’s military spending is to a large extent attributable to the ongoing costly military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, in 2005 the effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita also played an important role. Most of the increase in US military spending resulted from supplementary allocations administered outside the regular budget, moving control of funding decisions from the Congress to the President.  
A factor that has aided the upward trend in military expenditure is the high and rising world market prices of minerals and fossil fuels. This is reflected especially in Algeria, Azerbaijan, Russia and Saudi Arabia, where increased proceeds from oil and gas exploitation have boosted government revenues and freed up funds for military spending. The boost in the military expenditure of Chile and Peru is directly resource-driven, because their military spending is linked by law to profits from the exploitation of key natural resources.  
China and India, the world’s two emerging economic powers, are demonstrating a sustained increase in their military expenditure and contribute to the growth in world military spending. In absolute terms their current spending is only a fraction of the USA’s. Their increases are largely commensurate with their economic growth.  
2. Arms production  
Arms sales by the 100 largest arms-producing companies (the ‘SIPRI Top 100’) showed a marked rise of 15 per cent during 2004. This continues a rising trend since the late 1990s.  
The value of the combined arms sales of the SIPRI Top 100 was $268 billion. Companies in the USA and Western Europe accounted for most of this amount: 63.3 per cent was accounted for by 40 US companies; and 29.4 per cent by 36 West European companies.  
Acquisition activity is continuing in the international arms industry, albeit at a less rapid pace than during the 1990s. Five very large acquisitions were concluded in 2005, each with a deal value close to or greater than $2 billion. Intra-US acquisitions are driven by a rush into new expanding sectors, such as information technology and military services, and are facilitated by large cash surpluses. Transatlantic acquisitions are dominated by British companies seeking to access the lucrative US market.  
Considering the development of the arms industry in the post-cold war period, three main types of changes are apparent: structural, technological and compositional.  
The arms industry has become increasingly concentrated, nationally as well as internationally. The share of the top 5 companies in the total arms sales of the SIPRI Top 100 increased from 22 per cent in 1990 to 44 per cent in 2003.  
There has been a clear and significant qualitative change in the nature of technology because civil technology has become increasingly important for weapon systems. This has led to an increasing importance of IT and electronics companies, often previously civil companies, in the defence sector and an increased number of civil companies in the supply chains of the main contractors. The demands of the USA’s ‘global war on terrorism’ have reinforced this trend.  
The privatization of defence services and support is drawing new kinds of suppliers into military contracting. This has been made apparent in Iraq, with companies taking on support roles that in the past the armed forces would have undertaken. A big growth area is the provision of security—guarding people and buildings. While some of these activities can be seen as an expansion of the arms industry, other support activities are not military services but general security services and construction, creating a periphery of private companies around the core arms industry.  
These developments have resulted in marked changes in the arms industry and further changes can be expected. It is, however, important to recognize that arms contractors continue to have a set of unique characteristics, due to the nature of the arms market, making them different to firms in other industrial segments. The nature of arms procurement and its elaborate rules and regulations mean that they face considerable barriers to exit, while non-specialists continue to face considerable barriers to entry for the same reasons. In spite of internationalization in terms of markets and supply chains, the home market and home government support remain vital to arms-producing companies.  
3. International arms transfers  
The global downward trend in international transfers of major weapons was reversed in 2003. Since then there has been an increase in the volume of major arms transfers as reflected in the SIPRI trend-indicator value. The change is also reflected in the financial values of global arms exports according to national reporting, which is estimated at $44–53 billion, or 0.5–0.6 per cent of world trade, in 2004, the most recent year for which data are available.  
The five largest suppliers in the period 2001–2005 were Russia, the USA, France, Germany and the UK, in order according to the SIPRI trend-indicator value. The combined exports from EU member states made it the third largest exporter of major conventional weapons. Russia and the USA each accounted for roughly 30 per cent of global deliveries of major weapons. In 2005 the five largest suppliers accounted for over 80 per cent of total deliveries.  
In the period 2001–2005, 43 per cent of Russia’s deliveries went to China and 25 per cent to India. China and India have become important to arms exporters because both are in a position to become economic powers and leaders in technology applications. The USA’s relations with India are today labelled ‘strategic’, and the US policy is to keep India and Japan strong in order to offset China’s rising regional influence. While the present volume of US transfers of major weapons to India is low, the USA seems prepared to offer the country advanced weaponry, including technology transfers and co-development of weapons. The four largest recipients of US exports in 2001–2005 were Greece, Israel, the UK and Egypt, in that order.  
The search for new markets and the drive to maintain existing markets sharpen international competition. In some cases this supports commercial pragmatism in national implementations of export policy; that is, markets that are not subject to international embargoes are regarded as open markets. In parallel, there is evidence of political fatigue in some governments with regard to their commitment to transparency and the UN arms export reporting mechanism, the UNROCA. The UNROCA showed large discrepancies in reported data between exports and imports, and the criteria that different countries used to decide which weapons to report and how a ‘transfer’ is defined remain at variance. Transparency will suffer if a tendency for commercial pragmatism in national arms export policy spreads and reduces political willingness to report on national arms exports. At the same time, it remains difficult to interpret the data that are actually being reported.

Enviado por: Marauder em Setembro 23, 2006, 04:18:12 pm
Despesa militar mundial superará os 834 mil M€ em 2006
A despesa militar em 2006 no mundo será 15 vezes maior que o destinado à ajuda internacional, alcançando os 834 mil milhões de euros, mais do que no período da «Guerra Fria», segundo um relatório da organização não governamental espanhola INTERMON OXFAM.

O documento, tornado público hoje pela Cadena SER, faz ainda referência ao aumento de vendas de armamento em todo o mundo, com os fabricantes a verem os seus lucros subirem mais de 70% entre os anos 2000 e 2004.

Para a INTERMON OXFAM, são estas armas que estão a alimentar os conflitos que, por sua vez, são a principal causa da fome no mundo. A organização espanhola estima que 35% das emergências alimentares ocorridas nos últimos anos são provocadas pelas guerras.

Aos microfones da Cadena SER, a directora-geral da INTERMON OXFAM, Arian Arpa, sublinhou que os principais responsáveis são os governos ocidentais «que permitem aos fabricantes de armas aumentar consideravelmente as vendas».

Também apontou responsabilidades aos particulares, assinalando o facto de que a cada minuto morre uma pessoa por um disparo de uma arma de fogo, «que na sua maioria não estão nas mãos de forças regulares».

A ONG exige à ONU a elaboração de um tratado internacional que regule o comércio de armas.

«O problema é que as armas estão nas mãos erradas», já que, no entender desta organização, estas armas deveriam estar sob controlo das «forças regulares dos Estados democráticos».

23-09-2006 12:44:40

de: ... ews=244151 (
Enviado por: Lancero em Fevereiro 06, 2007, 03:30:53 pm
DoD to request $622.6 billion for 2008

By Sean D. Naylor - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Feb 2, 2007 20:31:47 EST

The Pentagon is expected to send Congress a $622.6 billion defense budget for 2008. The sum includes $141.7 billion to continue fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The numbers were confirmed by a Pentagon official Feb. 2.

The spending plan, to be delivered to lawmakers Feb. 5, is $6.2 billion more than the $616.4 billion the Pentagon is spending this year. But there are greater differences in the budget than those numbers alone suggest.

Basic “peacetime” spending for 2008 is set at $481.4 billion, up from about $440 billion approved for 2007. Peacetime spending is how much it costs each year to keep the U.S. military going — pay and train troops, buy and maintain weapons, conduct exercises and deployments. War costs are extra.

And there’s a substantial drop in war costs. The Pentagon wants $163.4 billion to fight the wars during 2007. The 2008 request is $21.7 billion less.

At about the same time the 2008 request goes to Capitol Hill, the Pentagon is expected to ask for $93.4 billion more in emergency war funding for 2007. That is slightly less than the $99.7 billion called for in a December draft of the supplemental.

The budget figures, closely held by the Pentagon, were first reported by Bloomberg news service.

With war costs included, defense spending in 2008 would be higher than it has been since World War II, said Steven Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA).

If the requested total is not cut by Congress, the 2008 budget will mark 10 years of robust growth in military spending. The current run-up began in 1999, when the budget was $276.2 billion.

There is a growing sense in Congress, now controlled by the Democrats, that defense spending cannot continue its decade-long ascent.

“Half the discretionary budget goes into defense. We can’t keep adding to the top line,” said an aide to a senior House Armed Services Committee member. “We’re going to have to start making some choices.”

It’s not getting easier.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported Feb. 1 that the Pentagon’s estimate of $5 billion to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq may be understated by a factor of two or almost three. Sending support troops along with the combat troops is expected to push the cost to $9 billion to $13 billion, the CBO said.

To accommodate that, Congress will have to consider “cutting back, delaying or deferring new weapons to ensure that the people on the ground over there have the equipment they need,” the aide said.

The defense budget is not expected to call for eliminating — or even seriously trimming — any of the military’s major weapon programs. But lawmakers might as they weight war costs and their desire to bolster spending on domestic programs.

Potential Targets
The most vulnerable program is probably the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS), defense analysts agree.

FCS calls for building 18 separate systems — manned and unmanned ground and air vehicles — that are linked to one another through an electronic communications network.

Soldiers in the vehicles and on the ground would be fed volumes of information about where the enemy is on the battlefield.

But many of the systems exist at this point only in concept. And FCS, estimated in 2003 to cost $92 billion, ballooned to $161 billion last year.

Moreover, the Iraq war may be casting doubt on the FCS concept, said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project.

Sensors and the network were supposed to give U.S. troops such a precise picture of the battlefield that U.S. troops could kill or avoid enemy forces. Old fashioned equipment such as heavy tanks would be unnecessary.

But it hasn’t worked out that way in Iraq, where U.S. technology has been largely unable to detect and defeat “improvised explosive devices” cobbled together by insurgents, Wheeler said.

“FCS will be messed around with,” Wheeler predicted, but possibly not until after 2008.

The Joint Strike Fighter is another program likely to face cuts, although it may survive unscathed in 2008. The multiservice, multicountry plane is a budget-cutter’s target because that’s where the money is. At $276 billion, it is the most expensive weapon program ever.

The JSF will almost certainly be “scaled back significantly” over the next six years, Wheeler said.

Supplemental Scrutiny?
For short-term cuts, look to the 2007 emergency supplemental. Under rules set by Gordon England, deputy defense secretary, last fall, the services were permitted to include requests in the supplemental for spending not directly related to the two wars.

Thus the $93.4 billion request is expected to include money for such items as Joint Strike Fighters, research-and-development projects and Army modularization.

House and Senate Appropriations Committee members have promised intense scrutiny of the emergency supplemental request.

“They’re going to scrub the hell out of it and all kinds of things are going to fall out,” the House aide said.

Cost-consciousness in Congress may trigger a new a new era of rivalry among the three U.S. services for money, manpower and modernization.

For several decades there has been an unspoken truce among the services that has prevented any service from trying to gain budget share at the expense of another, said Kosiak. Now that truce may be in jeopardy.

For example, Congress seems sympathetic to an Army and Marine Corps request for 92,000 extra troops, and that makes the Navy and Air Force “very, very nervous,” said Robert Work, director of strategic studies at CSBA.

In recent years, the Air Force and Navy have been cutting troops to make more money available for new weapons. Now they fear the money they save from troop cuts may be diverted to add troops to the Army and Marine Corps.

Troop increases are expected to cost about $8 billon in 2008 and $58 billion over the next six years, according to Cindy Williams, a principal research scientist in the Security Studies Program at MIT.

Williams contends that even the massive new budget the U.S. military has prepared will fall some $30 billion short of paying for all of the weapons, additional troops and operations it has planned.

It is an “unrealistic budget” because big as it is, it does not cover the cost of all the Pentagon is planning to do, said Williams, who is a former assistant director of the CBO’s National Security Division.

Fonte (http://http)
Enviado por: Lancero em Fevereiro 07, 2007, 06:38:13 pm
Rússia: Forças Armadas vão renovar armamentos - Ivanov

Moscovo, 07 Fev (Lusa) - O ministro da Defesa russo, Serguei Ivanov, apresentou hoje no Parlamento as ambições dos generais russos, anunciando a renovação de metade dos armamentos até 2015.

      "Cerca de 45 por cento do material militar actual será substituído no quadro do rearmamento do Exército e da Armada até 2015", declarou o ministro num discurso visto pelos analistas como propaganda eleitoral a mais de um ano das presidenciais.

      As Forças Armadas da Rússia receberão 50 novos mísseis balísticos Topol-M, 50 bombardeiros estratégicos Tu- 160 e Tu-95, 31 barcos de guerra, bem como tanques, o que implicará custos da ordem dos 146 mil milhões de rublos (42 milhões de euros).

      "Agora, o problema da falta de dinheiro não é agudo, as encomendas militares feitas pelo Estado são pagas até ao último cêntimo", sublinhou Ivanov.

      O também vice-primeiro-ministro e um dos mais fortes candidatos à sucessão de Putin no Kremlin em 2008 garantiu que o seu país irá cumprir os compromissos internacionais no que respeita à liquidação de rampas de lançamentos de mísseis.

      "Por muito triste e doloroso que isso seja, se nos comprometemos, devemos cumprir os compromissos. Disso depende o prestígio e a imagem da Rússia no mundo", disse Ivanov.

      Porém, considerou um erro a liquidação dos mísseis de médio alcance pela Rússia.

      "Claro que foram cometidos erros. Penso que um dos mais sérios, que se reflecte de forma negativa na nossa segurança, foi a liquidação de todo um tipo de mísseis de médio alcance", afirmou o ministro.

      "Eu não teria feito isso. Porque, hoje, há no mundo dezenas de Estados que possuem mísseis de médio alcance. Só nós e os Estados Unidos não temos direito a possuir essas armas", sublinhou.

      Ao discursar perante os deputados, Ivanov reafirmou também que "a Rússia reserva para si o direito a um ataque preventivo em caso de agressão, mas não será nuclear".

      O ministro anunciou que, hoje, as Forças Armadas da Rússia são constituídas por 1.300 mil homens.

      "Não podemos reduzi-las mais", sublinhou.
Enviado por: Mar Verde em Março 02, 2007, 02:17:50 pm
India Increases Defence Spending Eight Percent

India is Asia's biggest arms buyer and has spent billions of dollars in the past few years on purchases of planes, radar and ships from Britain, Israel, France and Russia among others. Photo courtesy AFP.

by Staff Writers
New Delhi (AFP) Feb 28, 2007

India raised spending on its military by 7.8 percent to 21.3 billion dollars for the next fiscal year starting April, the government said in its budget announcement Wednesday. India's military has planned a massive upgrade of its mainly 1990s-era weapons systems, mostly from Cold War ally the former Soviet Union and subsequently Russia. The plans include the purchase of 126 new combat aircraft to replace an ageing fleet of MiG-21s.

The budget for the fiscal year starting April 1 comes as India and South Asian military rival Pakistan remain engaged in a peace process which began in January 2004 that has defused tension over disputed Kashmir, the cause of two of their three wars.

India's million-plus army, the world's fourth largest, received the lion's share of the funds.

But new arms purchases have fuelled offshore attention with US-based Lockheed-Martin's F-16 competing for the 126 multi-role fighter planes along with US rival Boeing's F-18, the Rafale made by French Dassault, the Eurofighter and the Russian-built MiG-35 and MiG-29.

The United States emerged as a potential military supplier to India after the two countries signed a landmark deal on civilian energy cooperation last year that lifted decades of arms and technology sale sanctions on New Delhi.

Under the deal, India has pledged to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and place the former under UN inspection. India tested nuclear weapons in May 1998, a move immediately followed by rival Pakistan.

India is Asia's biggest arms buyer and has spent billions of dollars in the past few years on purchases of planes, radar and ships from Britain, Israel, France and Russia among others.

Source: Agence France-Presse
Título: Re: Despesas militares mundais
Enviado por: ferrol em Março 24, 2007, 08:56:43 am
Citação de: "Marauder"
The United States remained the biggest worldwide spender with 48 percent of the 1.118 trillion dollar (885 billion euros) pie and alone accounted for 80 percent of the 33-billion-dollar increase in global spending, it said in its annual report.

But the Middle East was the region with the highest relative spending increase, mostly due to a massive increase in Saudi Arabia's defence budget.

Europe was the only region with a decrease in military spending, by 1.7 percent, especially because of western European spending cuts.

The biggest falls were recorded in Italy and Britain, SIPRI said.

Worldwide military spending represented 2.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005, or 173 dollars per capita.

In China, spending was 31.20 dollars per capita, and in India, 18.50 dollars.

Military expenditure in Latin America and the Caribbean increased by 7.2 percent in 2005, mostly driven by three big spenders Brazil, Chile and Colombia, who together account for three-quarters of military spending in the region.

Chile's spending was boosted by rising revenues from copper, helping the country's military forces to finance an ongoing modernisation programme.

The pace of the programme means that Chile could by 2010 become the region's first country to possess NATO-standard military forces, SIPRI said.

Chile's increased spending has raised concerns in neighbouring Peru, prompting the creation of an acquisition, modernisation and repair fund for that country's armed forces.

In Venezuela rising government revenues, from oil, have also translated into increased military spending, which saw the region's greatest increase after those of Brazil and Chile.

Despite large procurement deals by Chile and Venezuela "there is little sign of the emergence of competitive arms acquisitions in the region", SIPRI said.

Quixera comentar algúns aspectos destes párrafos:
1º.- EE.UU: Está metido en varias leas, e está reorientando o séu gasto militar ás chamadas "guerras asimétricas". Os programas grandes non deben oculta-la situación de que nos próximos anos, EE.UU vai ter que loitar con novas situacións que quizáis os avances técnicos en material non poidan solucionar. Aumenta o gasto porque por primeira vez está metido en 2 frontes á vez, e dentro de nada pode andar metido en algunha outra. Esto é inédito na historia militar dos EE.UU e require tamén un troco de estratexia.

2º.- ¿Cal é a razón de que en Arabia Saudita medre tanto o séu gasto militar?

3º.- Europa: Non temos hipótesis de conflictos. Eso é bon, naturalmente, e moito máis sabendo que onde vaiamos, imos voluntariamente, por intereses propios ou conviccións políticas, non porque ninguén nolo manda. De ahí sacamos que tamén se reorientan gastos deica a proxección de forzas, que sempre é máis barato que desenrolos militares de combate de primeira liña. Curioso o caso británico...cando máis diñeiro necesitan para mante-las aventuras asiáticas, máis decrece o presuposto de defensa...

4º.- China. Non lles interesa chama-la atención con gastos desorbitados. Medran ós poucos, pero insistentemente. Está nacendo unha potencia en Asia. O mellor do caso é que todos, rusos, franceses, incluso os americanos nalgún campo, alimentan ó xigante co obxectivo dos rendementos económicos a curto prazo...e China busca só o longo prazo.

5º.- Latinoamérica: É unha mágoa que as desconfianzas locais impidan un desenrolo máis rápido das sociedades civís. Increméntase o gasto militar nunha rexión que non ten hipóteses factibles de conflicto, nin ten unha política de proxección de forzas...só se explica pola influencia dos militares que aínda exercen nos gobernos locais...
Caso especial paréceme o de Colombia, que ten unha loita por recupera-la soberanía sobre amplas zonas do país rexidas por narcoguerrillas e paramilitares que disolven a sociedade en asasinatos en corrupcións.
De Chile, pouco podo dicir que non dixera antes. Penso que se comporta como un novo rico. Só así se explica que prefira mercar fóra antes que desenrolar nacional, como no caso de Tridente, ou se conforme con F-16´s americanos sen apenas contrapartidas...

Agradécese que acaden estándares OTAN gracias ó cobre, pero éste tarde ou cedo vai volver a baixar, e como Chile non controla o precio, tal vez logo non poida manter eses estándares OTAN, como non os puido manter Arxentina, que era o país máis próximo á OTAN hai 20 anos...

Se como dí o SIPRI, voltara unha carreira de merca de armas en Latinoamérica, os únicos gañadores serían, de novo, os vendedores estranxeiros, non os mercadores nacionais. Un novo trasvase de diñeiro dos pobres para os ricos...

En fin...saúdos.
Enviado por: Lancero em Junho 02, 2007, 07:17:36 pm
#1 United States: $276,700,000,000.00
#2 China: $55,910,000,000.00
#3 France: $46,500,000,000.00
#4 Japan: $39,520,000,000.00
#5 Germany: $38,800,000,000.00
#6 United Kingdom: $31,700,000,000.00
#7 Italy: $20,200,000,000.00
#8 Saudi Arabia: $18,300,000,000.00
#9 Brazil: $13,408,000,000.00
#10 Korea, South: $13,094,300,000.00
#11 India: $11,520,000,000.00
#12 Australia: $11,390,000,000.00
#13 Iran: $9,700,000,000.00
#14 Israel: $8,970,000,000.00
#15 Spain: $8,600,000,000.00
#16 Turkey: $8,100,000,000.00
#17 Canada: $7,861,000,000.00
#18 Taiwan: $7,574,000,000.00
#19 Netherlands: $6,500,000,000.00
#20 Greece: $6,120,000,000.00
#21 Korea, North: $5,217,400,000.00
#22 Singapore: $4,470,000,000.00
#23 Sweden: $4,395,000,000.00
#24 Argentina: $4,300,000,000.00
#25 Egypt: $4,040,000,000.00
#26 Mexico: $4,000,000,000.00
#27 Poland: $3,500,000,000.00
#28 Colombia: $3,300,000,000.00
#29 Norway: $3,113,000,000.00
#30 Belgium: $3,077,000,000.00
#31 Pakistan: $2,964,000,000.00
#32 Switzerland: $2,548,000,000.00
#33 Chile: $2,500,000,000.00
#34 Denmark: $2,470,000,000.00
#35 Oman: $2,424,000,000.00
#36 Kuwait: $1,967,300,000.00
#37 Algeria: $1,870,000,000.00
#38 Finland: $1,800,000,000.00
#39 Thailand: $1,775,000,000.00
#40 South Africa: $1,746,000,000.00
#41 Malaysia: $1,690,000,000.00
#42 United Arab Emirates: $1,600,000,000.00
#43 Austria: $1,497,000,000.00
#44 Morocco: $1,400,000,000.00
#45 Iraq: $1,300,000,000.00
#46 Libya: $1,300,000,000.00
#47 Portugal: $1,286,000,000.00
#48 Czech Republic: $1,190,200,000.00
#49 Hungary: $1,080,000,000.00
#50 Peru: $1,000,000,000.00
#51 Indonesia: $1,000,000,000.00
#52 Philippines: $995,000,000.00
#53 Romania: $985,000,000.00
#54 Venezuela: $934,000,000.00
#55 Syria: $858,000,000.00
#56 Ethiopia: $800,000,000.00
#57 Jordan: $757,500,000.00
#58 Qatar: $723,000,000.00
#59 Ecuador: $720,000,000.00
#60 Sri Lanka: $719,000,000.00
#61 Ireland: $700,000,000.00
#62 Serbia and Montenegro: $654,000,000.00
#63 Vietnam: $650,000,000.00
#64 Zimbabwe: $625,100,000.00
#65 Ukraine: $617,900,000.00
#66 New Zealand: $605,700,000.00
#67 Sudan: $581,000,000.00
#68 Bangladesh: $559,000,000.00
#69 Lebanon: $541,000,000.00
#70 Bahrain: $526,200,000.00
#71 Afghanistan: $525,200,000.00
#72 Croatia: $520,000,000.00
#73 Yemen: $482,500,000.00
#74 Mali: $419,700,000.00
#75 Nigeria: $417,900,000.00
#76 Slovakia: $406,000,000.00
#77 Cyprus: $384,000,000.00
#78 Slovenia: $370,000,000.00
#79 Tunisia: $356,000,000.00
#80 Bulgaria: $356,000,000.00
#81 Brunei: $329,700,000.00
#82 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: $250,000,000.00
#83 Uruguay: $250,000,000.00
#84 Bosnia and Herzegovina: $234,300,000.00
#85 Lithuania: $230,800,000.00
#86 Angola: $222,700,000.00
#87 Kazakhstan: $221,800,000.00
#88 Botswana: $207,300,000.00
#89 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: $200,000,000.00
#90 Uzbekistan: $200,000,000.00
#91 New Caledonia: $192,300,000.00
#92 Kenya: $185,200,000.00
#93 Dominican Republic: $180,000,000.00
#94 Belarus: $176,100,000.00
#95 Estonia: $155,000,000.00
#96 Guinea: $154,000,000.00
#97 Luxembourg: $147,800,000.00
#98 Bolivia: $147,000,000.00
#99 Cote d'Ivoire: $143,500,000.00
#100 Armenia: $135,000,000.00
#101 Panama: $128,000,000.00
#102 Paraguay: $125,000,000.00
#103 Uganda: $124,700,000.00
#104 Azerbaijan: $121,000,000.00
#105 Guatemala: $120,000,000.00
#106 Cameroon: $118,600,000.00
#107 El Salvador: $112,000,000.00
#108 Cambodia: $112,000,000.00
#109 Eritrea: $95,750,000.00
#110 Trinidad and Tobago: $90,000,000.00
#111 Turkmenistan: $90,000,000.00
#112 Latvia: $87,000,000.00
#113 Congo, Republic of the: $84,000,000.00
#114 Gabon: $81,900,000.00
#115 Benin: $80,800,000.00
#116 Namibia: $73,100,000.00
#117 Costa Rica: $69,000,000.00
#118 Senegal: $68,600,000.00
#119 Malta: $60,000,000.00
#120 Rwanda: $59,570,000.00
#121 Nepal: $57,220,000.00
#122 Albania: $56,500,000.00
#123 Laos: $55,000,000.00
#124 Madagascar: $52,300,000.00
#125 Haiti: $50,000,000.00
#126 Burkina Faso: $45,830,000.00
#127 Burundi: $42,130,000.00
#128 Chad: $40,740,000.00
#129 Papua New Guinea: $40,210,000.00
#130 Fiji: $39,210,000.00
#131 Burma: $39,000,000.00
#132 Mauritania: $37,110,000.00
#133 Ghana: $36,010,000.00
#134 Tajikistan: $35,400,000.00
#135 Mozambique: $35,100,000.00
#136 Honduras: $35,000,000.00
#137 Maldives: $34,460,000.00
#138 Lesotho: $34,000,000.00
#139 Zambia: $33,460,000.00
#140 Equatorial Guinea: $30,000,000.00
#141 Jamaica: $30,000,000.00
#142 Djibouti: $26,530,000.00
#143 Nicaragua: $26,000,000.00
#144 Togo: $23,720,000.00
#145 Mongolia: $23,100,000.00
#146 Georgia: $23,000,000.00
#147 Niger: $20,540,000.00
#148 Swaziland: $20,000,000.00
#149 Bahamas, The: $20,000,000.00
#150 Tanzania: $19,680,000.00
#151 Kyrgyzstan: $19,200,000.00
#152 Somalia: $17,100,000.00
#153 Central African Republic: $13,430,000.00
#154 Malawi: $13,010,000.00
#155 Seychelles: $12,800,000.00
#156 Sierra Leone: $10,260,000.00
#157 Mauritius: $9,712,000.00
#158 Cape Verde: $9,300,000.00
#159 Bhutan: $9,300,000.00
#160 Liberia: $7,800,000.00
#161 Belize: $7,700,000.00
#162 Moldova: $6,400,000.00
#163 Comoros: $6,000,000.00
#164 Guinea-Bissau: $5,600,000.00
#165 East Timor: $4,400,000.00
#166 Bermuda: $4,028,000.00
#167 Gambia, The: $1,200,000.00
#168 San Marino: $700,000.00
#169 Sao Tome and Principe: $400,000.00
#170 Iceland: $0.00

Fonte (http://http)
Título: Re: Despesas militares mundais
Enviado por: Jorge Pereira em Setembro 24, 2010, 02:25:52 pm
Paris exige mais investimento na Defesa

A Europa arrisca-se a ser um "condomínio sino-americano"

24.09.2010 - 13:11 Por PÚBLICO

A França deu hoje um murro na mesa e preveniu os seus parceiros da União Europeia que ao ritmo actual dos cortes nos orçamentos militares, a Europa vai tornar-se num “protectorado”, ou “um condomínio sino-americano”, cita a AFP.

“Os países europeus demitiram-se, na maioria, de uma ambição simples: dispor de um aparelho militar que lhes permita ter peso nas questões mundiais”, declarou o ministro francês da Defesa, Hervé Morin, depois de uma reunião com os seus 26 colegas da UE, em Gand (Norte da Bélgica).

“Ao ritmo a que estamos, a Europa irá tornar-se progressivamente um protectorado e daqui a 50 anos vamos transformarmo-nos no jogo de equilíbrio das novas potências, onde estaremos sob um condomínio sino-americano”. Morin adiantou que enquanto “todos os países do mundo estão a aumentar o seu armamento”, os membros da UE estão empenhados em reduzi-lo.

Os Estados Unidos também não estão satisfeitos. Hoje, o jornal “New York Times” escreve que as reduções orçamentais na defesa britânica são motivo de preocupação em Washington, que tem no Reino Unido o seu mais necessário aliado.

As reduções nos gastos com o Exército britânico nos próximos seis anos podem ir dos 10 aos 20 por cento. O “NYT” refere que isto vem levantar dúvidas entre os especialistas militares sobre se esta continuará a ser uma força suficientemente ágil para se juntar às tropas americanas nas operações de combate, como as que estão a decorrer no Afeganistão.

A revisão orçamental de Londres levou o secretário da Defesa norte-americana, Robert Gates, a encontrar-se esta quarta-feira com o seu homólogo britânico, Liam Fox – que garantiu que o Reino Unido irá continuar a responder a vários tipos de ameaça, incluindo as que mais preocupam o Pentágono.

Também a Alemanha anunciou que pretende reduzir um terço da suas Forças Armadas. Os cortes feitos pelos países europeus na Defesa são considerados os mais profundos desde o fim da guerra fria.

A NATO recomenda aos seus membros que gastem dois por cento do seu orçamento na defesa (os EUA gastam perto de quatro por cento), mas mesmo antes do anúncio das restrições feito por alguns países europeus, essa barreira não era cumprida, salientava recentemente o “Wall Street Journal”.

Em todo o caso, adianta, “raramente tantos países da NATO estiveram dispostos a mudanças tão radicais nas suas defesas ao mesmo tempo”. E o que agrava a situação, adianta, é o desconhecimento entre os vários membros da Aliança sobre os cortes alheios. “Conversas com diplomatas da NATO e dos governos aliados sugerem que os seus países sabem pouco ou pouco se preocupam com os cortes e reformas que os parceiros possam estar a considerar fazer. Isto ameaça a capacidade da NATO em agir como uma força coerente”.
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Crypter em Setembro 24, 2010, 02:44:11 pm
O problema está, que os paises da europa não têm um inimigo bem definido!! Ou seja neste momento, qual o país do mundo que a europa tenha com que se preocupar?? A Russia?? Já la vai o tempo? A china? Praticamente impossivel ameaçar directamente a europa devido á sua situação geográfica!!

A única coisa que ainda mete a europa com um pé atrás, é os misseis do Irão! Mas esses combatem-se com um "simples" sistema de defesa não sendo necessário o exército convencional!...

além disso, a Europa já deixou o "espirito atacante" de lado à muito tempo!! Sendo que agora limita-se a estar sossegada no seu canto à defesa...
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: typhonman em Setembro 24, 2010, 11:30:32 pm
Mais uma vez aqui está a prova do que eu já tinha dito, a UE está-se a demitir a passos largos da sua "voz" no mundo, vai ficar muda, e ainda mais dependente dos EUA e NATO.

É simplesmente vergonhoso as dimensões dos cortes que se estão a fazer, quando um dia os EUA disserem "basta", "estamos fartos de pagar as vossa defesa", ou se um dia a NATO de dissolve, a Europa fica remetida a um canto.
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: P44 em Outubro 19, 2010, 04:57:08 pm
Defence review: Cameron confirms 8% spending cuts
British soldiers The Army is facing cuts in personnel and heavy artillery

David Cameron has confirmed defence spending is to be cut by 8% in real terms over four years, as he unveils the strategic defence review.

He said RAF and Navy numbers would be reduced by 5,000 each, Army numbers by 7,000 and the Ministry of Defence would lose 25,000 civilian staff by 2015.

Nimrod reconnaissance planes would be axed and there will be fewer frigates and destroyers, he said.

Labour's Ed Miliband said the review had been "hastily prepared".

Mr Cameron opened his Commons' statement by denying the review was simply a "cost saving exercise", saying it was a "step change in the way we protect this country's security interests".

He said the defence budget would fall by 8% over four years but will meet the Nato target of spending 2% of GDP on defence and would still leave Britain with the fourth largest military in the world.
Continue reading the main story

    * Harrier jump jet retired
    * Nimrod spy plane cancelled
    * 5,000 RAF personnel axed over five years
    * 5,000 Navy personnel cut
    * 7,000 army personnel cut
    * 25,000 civilian MoD staff axed
    * Trident replaced but £750m savings from fewer warheads
    * Two aircraft carriers saved, but one will not enter service

There would be no cuts to support for troops in Afghanistan - which is funded separately from the Treasury's special reserve, he told MPs.

Mr Cameron vowed to push ahead with replacing Britain's Trident nuclear missile system but said their replacement would be scaled back, with the number of warheads per boat cut from 58 to 40, as part of a £750m package of savings.

The life of the current Trident submarines would also be extended, with the final spending decision on their replacement delayed until 2016 - after the next general election.

Mr Cameron said he wanted the Ministry of Defence to become more commercially "hard headed" and said it would face "significant challenges" as a result of cuts.

He confirmed HMS Ark Royal will be decommissioned four years early and the UK's Harrier jump jets will be axed. Two new aircraft carriers will be built but one would be placed on "extended readiness".

A "large well-equipped" Army would remain - that would amount to 95,500 personnel by 2015 - 7,000 less than today, Mr Cameron said

Tanks and heavy artillery would be reduced by 405 - but there would be 12 more Chinooks and communications equipment, he said.

He also said naval manpower would fall to 30,000 by 2015 and the total number of frigates and destroyers would drop from 23 to 19 by 2020.

The future of RAF Kinloss is in doubt as nine Nimrod planes are being axed.

BBC Scotland correspondent James Cook said it had come as a big blow for the base - which employs 1,500 people and could now close as an RAF base although the Ministry of Defence is likely to retain the site and may eventually use it as a barracks for soldiers returning from Germany.

The future of nearby RAF Lossiemouth remains uncertain.

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the decision to decommission the Ark Royal and axe the UK's force of Harrier jump jets meant that, until at least 2019, no planes would be able to fly from the new aircraft carriers.

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy described the arrangement as "peculiar" and "driven by finance".

He told the BBC: "What's the purpose of an aircraft carrier if not to carry aircraft? And I think to leave our country without a single fixed-wing aircraft able to fly off our aircraft carriers for a decade is a very worrying decision.

"It can't be driven by security needs or strategic needs. No-one based on the security needs of our country would come to the decision that a decade without an aeroplane on an aircraft carrier is the right decision."

Defence Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC the fleet had to modernise and have the "correct balance for the next 30 to 40 years".

He said there had been periods in the past - before the Harriers came on stream - when the UK had aircraft carriers with no planes to fly on them. Dr Fox said there would be a range of helicopters and unmanned aircraft which would still be able to fly from them.

The BBC has learned that at least one of the new carriers will be redesigned so that it can deploy normal fighter aircraft that do not need a Harrier-style vertical lift capability.

Dr Fox said that there would be "interoperability" so strike fighter aircraft from allies such as France could land on UK aircraft carriers, and vice versa.

The last strategic defence review in 1998 took more than a year, while this one has been carried out in five months, leading to accusations that the government has rushed the process.

It has been undertaken at the same time as the Spending Review - due to be published on Wednesday - which is expected to see huge cuts to departmental spending across Whitehall. ... print=true (
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: typhonman em Outubro 19, 2010, 11:41:12 pm
10 anos sem Carriers, e quando chegarem um deles vai ser para venda....
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: João Vaz em Outubro 20, 2010, 10:14:51 am
...sendo que o corte incialmente previsto era de 10%.

O principal argumento do actual governo inglês é o rombo financeiro herdado da legislatura anterior (onde é que eu já vi e ouvi isto?).

Depois a União Europeia que se queixe que os Estados Unidos estão em todo o lado. Mais uma questão para a reavaliação da estratégia da NATO. Com que meios, por quem? Já para não falar na evolução da EUROFOR e a articulação entre ambas  :?

Só incógnitas no horizonte. E os turcos à porta (mas desta vez, já não precisam conquistar Constantinopla).
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: P44 em Outubro 20, 2010, 10:42:58 am
Os ingleses só têm de agradecer ás guerras no Iraque e no Afeganistão.
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Leonidas em Novembro 28, 2012, 09:21:25 pm
The Incredible, Shrinking Modern Military  
(Source: International Relations and Security Network; posted November 27, 2012)
 While military forces have grown ever more sophisticated, their size and density have been on the decline for decades. In 1939, before the outbreak of World War II, the French navy boasted seven battleships, one aircraft carrier, seven heavy cruisers, 12 light cruisers, 78 destroyers, and 81 submarines. Today, France, with the world's fourth-largest defense budget, has a core fighting fleet consisting of one aircraft carrier, four amphibious ships, 12 frigates, and six attack submarines.

In 1842, Britain fielded 14,000 soldiers for the Battle of Kabul, while at the same time having enough reserve manpower to police an empire on which the sun never set. In 2012, with the U.K. still having the fifth-largest defense budget and not much of an empire, senior British military leaders have repeatedly told the British public, the political leadership in London, and anyone else who cares to listen that the deployment of a mere 8,000 British soldiers to Afghanistan on a sustained basis is almost breaking the force.
In the 1950s, the United States built over 9,000 F-86 Sabres, a key fighter aircraft in the US and allied inventories during the early Cold War period. About half as many F-16s were built in the 1970s. Today, the F-35 is touted to be the next front-line fighter for the United States, as well as for America's friends and allies across the world. It is likely that no more than 3,000 will ever be built, a two-thirds reduction in comparison to the F-86.

One reason for the shrinkage of the modern military is cost. Fielding fully-capable state of the art armed forces is expensive. Ever more exquisite and sophisticated weapons, systems, and platforms demand a growing share of a country's defense budget, crowding out other priorities and reducing the number of systems and platforms a government can buy. But the explanation isn't limited to the defense-industrial sector. The manpower required to man, maintain, service, arm, and upgrade these expensive machines is also an expensive outlay. Across the developed world, conscripted forces have gone by the wayside in favor of volunteer professionals who, unlike their historical predecessors, are required to be able to understand, operate, and maintain a dazzling array of technology.

A well-equipped Western soldier of today is not only required to be able to operate his basic weapon and other bits of traditional soldiering gear. He also is expected to be able to be proficient in the use of advanced weapon sights, GPS devices, handheld computers, and night-vision goggles. Platoon leaders in Western militaries (usually people in their early 20s not long out of college) are responsible for weapons, equipment, and vehicles worth tens of millions of dollars.

The numbers behind these trends are stark. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, it cost roughly $2,600 in today's dollars to equip a rifleman during World War II. Today, the number is close to $20,000. Infantry equipment currently under development for the near-future force will inflate the price tag to close to $60,000 per rifleman.

In order to attract and retain enlisted soldiers and officers capable of handling the demands placed on them by the ever-increasing sophistication of their weapons, machines, vehicles, and systems, the militaries of the West are forced to offer competitive wages and benefits. Indeed, even a very quick glance at the U.S. military's pay chart reveals that, based on education and experience levels, modern soldiering is far from a low-paying job. The benefits offered to U.S. service members (such as housing allowance, medical, child care, retirement, etc.) would be considered generous indeed in the civilian workforce. As a result, the health care and retirement benefits of the Department of Defense are projected to skyrocket in the coming decades.The point here is not that the members of the military are overpaid, just that attracting and retaining the manpower required to operate the ever more sophisticated equipment and platforms of the military comes with an increasingly high price tag.

The result of the ever-increasing costs for military systems and for the compensation, training, and education of military personnel is that the number of both people and machines have been drastically reduced. But here's the rub: Even though modern military systems and units can outperform their predecessors by wide margins, they need a certain mass or density of systems or units in order to be able to respond to multiple contingencies, react to surprise, have a reserve at the ready, sustain deployments over time, or to achieve decisive results on the battlefield.

Many smaller nations are now getting close to having militaries of such low density that they cannot make meaningful contributions. Norway, for example, lost one of its four C-130s in a crash earlier this year, wiping out a quarter of the Norwegian air force's fixed-wing lift capacity in one fell swoop and calling into question whether Norway could deliver the lift capacity it had committed to the NATO operation in Afghanistan. This sudden shortfall was only solved by the United States diverting the delivery of a C-130 to the U.S. Air Force in order to sell it to Norway instead. Senior European military leaders will admit, if pressed, that they have capabilities that are now so limited that they are below the level of full operability. And leaders have an incentive not to use the few assets they have because of the risk of loss or damage.

Arrival at the point when a military force becomes so exquisite, sophisticated, expensive, and small that it no longer can fulfill a meaningful purpose may perhaps be delayed by cost-cutting, specialization, multinational pooling and sharing resources, or by mixing high- and low-end assets (such as F-16s and F-35s). Some nations have even chosen to completely remove capabilities in order to be able to spend more elsewhere. This was the case when Denmark ended its submarine force, and, more recently, the Netherlands decided to do away with its main battle tanks. The United States has so far avoided this loss of density by using the brute fiscal force of ever increasing defense budgets, but that may not last much longer as America seeks to get its fiscal house in order. None of these measures will allow the militaries of the West to escape the fundamental logic at work here. Instead, warfare needs to be rebooted.

Perhaps cyberspace will become the new decisive realm of warfare, where nations can relatively cheaply thrust and parry, and attack, defend, and hold assets at risk in order to coerce or deter an adversary. Maybe unmanned systems will not go down the road of ever increasing costs as most legacy systems have, and drones will become the preferred mode of combat in the future. In any case, the nation that can reboot warfare and escape the logic of the modern, incredible, shrinking military will be well positioned to dominate the military landscape of the 21st century. It's just a matter of who reaches for the ctrl+alt+delete keys first.

-ends- ... itary.html (

Claro que isto tambem nos diz respeito. Por isso acredito que o srviço militar obrigatorio nunca deveria ter sido extinto, mas, sim, reformado. Nao só se acabava com a pouca vergonha que se vem assistindo com os protesto por... condições, como se poderia combater os niveis gritantes de iliteracia que impera por cá, da maneira como acho que deveria ser.

Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lightning em Novembro 29, 2012, 10:48:03 pm
Citação de: "Leonidas"
Nao só se acabava com a pouca vergonha que se vem assistindo com os protesto por... condições

Desculpe lá Leonidas mas neste ponto não concordo consigo, então se actualmente os militares profissionais (com ordenado), criticam a perda de condições, se não tivessem ordenado já iam ficar mais felizes???
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: P44 em Fevereiro 05, 2013, 12:16:14 pm
Australia pôe material de guerra e equipamentos á venda:


12,000 vehicles (3300 Land Rovers variants, 2500 light trailers, 2430 medium trucks)

Up to 24 ships; (Landing ships HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla, supply ship, frigates, barges)

70 combat aircraft; (F/A-18 Hornet fighters)

110 other aircraft; (C-130 Hercules, King Air)

* 120 helicopters; (Sea King, Seahawk, Blackhawk)

* 600 armoured vehicles; (Armoured personnel carriers)

* A range of communications systems, weapons and explosive ordnance (M2A2 Howitzers, 30 calibre machine guns, Hamel guns, M60D Machine guns, SLRs, torpedos). ... 6565344839 (
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: typhonman em Fevereiro 08, 2013, 09:07:26 pm
Citação de: "P44"
Australia pôe material de guerra e equipamentos á venda:


12,000 vehicles (3300 Land Rovers variants, 2500 light trailers, 2430 medium trucks)

Up to 24 ships; (Landing ships HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla, supply ship, frigates, barges)

70 combat aircraft; (F/A-18 Hornet fighters)

110 other aircraft; (C-130 Hercules, King Air)

* 120 helicopters; (Sea King, Seahawk, Blackhawk)

* 600 armoured vehicles; (Armoured personnel carriers)

* A range of communications systems, weapons and explosive ordnance (M2A2 Howitzers, 30 calibre machine guns, Hamel guns, M60D Machine guns, SLRs, torpedos). ... 6565344839 (

Venham uns Black Hawks para o GALE  :mrgreen:
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lightning em Fevereiro 08, 2013, 11:21:06 pm
Citação de: "typhonman"
Venham uns Black Hawks para o GALE  :mrgreen:

E os Landing Ships para a Marinha.
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: P44 em Abril 29, 2013, 01:53:40 pm
Budget cuts mean Australia might not be able to fund planned major acquisitions, including 12 new submarines to replace its Collins-class boats. (RAN photo)

White Paper without Funds Makes No Sense: The Military Budget Is Already Stretched to Breaking Point
(Source: Australian Strategic Policy Institute; issued April 29, 2013)
   (This article was first published by The Australian on April 29, 2013)

Informed media comment is pointing to the likely release of a new defence white paper ahead of the May 14 budget. This delivers on Defence Minister Stephen Smith’s pre-budget surprise in May last year when he announced a new white paper would be produced well ahead of the government’s original plan for a 2014 document.

Last year, Smith’s announcement partly deflected attention from big cuts to defence spending. In the budget, $5.5 billion was cut from Defence across four years, reducing spending to 1.56 per cent of gross domestic product, the lowest since 1938.

This time around, the new white paper is unlikely to achieve the same masking effect. Defence spending will remain at record low levels and this will undermine the credibility of what are likely to be many major defence acquisitions announced with the white paper.

Among them are likely to be announced another 12 or 24 Super Hornet aircraft a decision already flagged by the government, a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer and decisions that will advance the selection of new submarines.

The merits of each of these acquisitions undoubtedly will be debated, but the biggest challenge is to explain how they can be afforded in a defence budget that has swung from planned annual growth of about 3 per cent a year to one that has been cut massively.

A generation ago, facing its own budgetary pressures, the Hawke government commissioned the building of eight Anzac frigates, 3600-tonne patrol vessels of quite limited capability.

Budget limitations meant that key weapons, including torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and a missile-defeating, close-in weapons system were not equipped.

This gave rise to the notorious phrase "filled for but not with". It took the Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan experiences to show that half-equipping the military is not a sensible strategy, and one that severely limits what the Australian Defence Force can do when the military need arises.

Sadly, it looks as though the 2013 defence white paper has been "fitted for but not with" money.

Promises of major defence equipment purchases mean nothing when no realistic provision has been made for their acquisition in later years.

In this respect, both government and opposition have failed to say when they would bring defence spending back on to a growth path. It is not a mailer of just hoping that economic circumstances will somehow allow this to happen. Governments must decide the priority they give defence and take steps to deliver on those priorities.

Of the mooted major announcements, a decision to acquire more Super Hornet aircraft is the one likely to have an immediate budget impact because the aircraft will come off an already running production line.

The most difficult trade-off for Australia will come in a decision a future government will make about cutting the numbers of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft to accommodate the Super Hornets.

It’s a difficult choice between a capable fourth-generation fighter aircraft already in production and the higher risk but even more capable fifth-generation JSF.

A fourth Air Warfare Destroyer would significantly strengthen the navy’s surface capability by providing a ship capable of operating with the US Navy in high-threat areas. But this would be an extra unplanned multi-billion dollar acquisition decision in a budget already stretching at the seams.

Again, what are the trade-offs? It may make sense to think of reducing the notional (some would say utterly fanciful) plan for doubling the submarine fleet. In the AWD, we have a largely extant capability. The future submarine concept remains unbuilt and unproven.

A third possible announcement with the white paper is that the government will decide to narrow the options it promised to review for the future submarine.

These options included looking at existing military "off-the-shelf’ designs, an evolution of our existing Collins-class boat and a totally new design. The cost difference between these three possibilities could amount to tens of billions of dollars.

One has to ask: why make the decision on submarine design type now? It is not clear how thoroughly any of these options have been tested and it will be practically impossible to lock in any spending decisions in the 20 or so weeks left to the election campaign. The new submarine acquisition plan is one that will have to survive many federal elections between now and the launch sometime in the late 2020s of the first boat. The government’s first obligation here is set to set the foundations for good project management.

Smith has foreshadowed other policy elements in the white paper that will be welcomed, including a renewed focus on regional defence engagement with friends and allies in the Asia-Pacific; a stronger focus on the Indian Ocean; and closer attention being paid to protecting our strategic interests in our northern and western approaches.

These are sensible, largely low-cost steps that reflect necessary priorities beyond our
Afghanistan mission.

The litmus test for the new white paper, as for all its predecessors, remains Defence’s
funding base.

If the white paper doesn’t resolve the growing imbalance between strategic ambition and grand plans for equipment purchases, then its shelf life will be short indeed, and future governments will be left to make the hard decisions between cutting capabilities or finding more dollars to invest.

-ends- ... fall.html# (
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: HSMW em Março 27, 2014, 09:02:14 pm
VICE News visits the factory floor of the American defense industry to learn how a twisted web of Machiavellian manufacturing strategies is keeping middle America afloat, politicians in office, and steady supply of weapons flowing to some questionable regimes.
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: olisipo em Fevereiro 22, 2016, 04:48:59 pm

China Becomes World's Third Largest Arms Exporter

China has surpassed Germany to become the world's third largest arms exporter, but the United States and Russia remain the dominant sellers of weapons worldwide, according to statistics released on Monday by a research organization in Sweden.

 The Stockolm International Peace Research Institute said China surpassed Germany on 2010-2014. With just 5 per cent of total exports for that period, China's share was far below that of the United States, at 31 per cent,  or Russia, at 27 per cent. (...)
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Fevereiro 25, 2016, 03:50:18 pm
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: olisipo em Fevereiro 26, 2016, 10:47:14 pm

Australia unveils "massive increase" in defense expending

(...The government said it would spend  US $139 billion  over the next decade, including a doubling of its submarine fleet to 24, three additional destroyers, nine new frigates and 12 offshore patrol boats   (...)

New air defence weapons would boost the force capabilities with 72 F-35s, known as Joint Strike Fighters, added from 2020 (...)
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: olisipo em Abril 08, 2016, 12:03:20 pm

World military spending resumes upwards course, says SIPRI
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Cabeça de Martelo em Maio 11, 2016, 12:20:30 pm
Citação de: Navor;n146998
German Armed Forces to get another 7000 soldiers until 2023.
Link in German (

Here some points.

Cyber Warfare Command to be established

Add. sailors for "Multi-Crew concept"
1 add. Boardingcompany within Seebataillon

Air Force
Add. Airmen for the SAM-Wing- From 2021 onwards
Add. personnel for UAV operations.

1 (WOW) add bridge-laying company

160 add. support personnel for KSK
Also add. personnel for KSK-M

Medical Service
500 add. personnel
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Cabeça de Martelo em Maio 11, 2016, 12:21:27 pm
Citação de: haze99;n139652
On the other side of the spear tip, the Marine Corp; (

Out of 276 F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters in the Marine Corps inventory, only about 30% are ready to fly, according to statistics provided by the Corps. Similarly, only 42 of 147 heavy-lift CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters are airworthy.

U.S. military spending has dropped from $691 billion in 2010 to $560 billion in 2015. The cuts came just as the planes were returning from 15 years of war, suffering from overuse and extreme wear and tear. Many highly trained mechanics in the aviation depots left for jobs in the private sector.
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Viajante em Julho 16, 2016, 12:10:14 pm
Ranking das 25 maiores potências militares mundiais em 2016, elaborado pela Global Firepower

Apesar da GF analisar 50 itens, aqui descrevo apenas 2, os gastos anuais em defesa e a mão-de-obra disponível para defender o país:

1º Estados Unidos (524,5 mil milhões de euros, 145 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
2º Rússia (42,4 mil milhões de euros, 70 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
3º China (140,8 mil milhões de euros, 750 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
4º Índia (36,1 mil milhões de euros, 616 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
5º França (31,6 mil milhões de euros, 30 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
6º Reino Unido (49,7 mil milhões de euros, 24 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
7º Japão (36,1 mil milhões de euros, 54 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
8º Turquia (16,2 mil milhões de euros, 42 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
9º Alemanha (32,5 mil milhões de euros, 37 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
10º Itália (30,7 mil milhões de euros, 28 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
11º Coreia do Sul (29,8 mil milhões de euros, 26 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
12º Egipto (3,6 mil milhões de euros, 42 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
13º Paquistão (6,3 mil milhões de euros, 95 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
14º Indonésia (6,3 mil milhões de euros, 130 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
15º Brasil (28,9 mil milhões de euros, 107 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
16º Israel (14,1 mil milhões de euros, 3,6 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
17º Vietname (3 mil milhões de euros, 50,6 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
18º Polónia (8,7 mil milhões de euros, 19 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
19º Taiwan (9,9 mil milhões de euros, 12,2 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
20º Tailãndia (4,8 mil milhões de euros, 35,5 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
21º Irão (5,7 mil milhões de euros, 47 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
22º Canadá (13,3 mil milhões de euros, 16 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
23º Austrália (23,5 mil milhões de euros, 10,7 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
24º Arábia Saudita (51,5 mil milhões de euros, 15,3 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
25º Coreia do Norte (6,8 mil milhões de euros, 13 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)

É um ranking obviamente polémico, mas que tem muitos fundamentos verdadeiros. Salta á vista claramente os números dos Estados Unidos e da China!!!!!!
Portugal, teria algo do género em comparação:
2,3 mil milhões de euros, 4,5 milhões de mão-de-obra (estimativa que fiz), aparece no lugar 63º, logo atrás da Hungria (62º). A Espanha aparece apenas no lugar 27º.
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Dezembro 09, 2016, 11:37:07 am
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Fevereiro 03, 2017, 01:45:36 pm
Corrida às armas já começou. E foi antes de Trump



A 9 de novembro, horas depois de ser conhecido o resultado das eleições americanas, a Forbes escrevia que "o presidente Donald Trump irá dar um forte impulso às despesas militares de 500 mil milhões para um bilião de dólares". Assinado por Charles Tieferr, especialista no Pentágono, o artigo fala das promessas feitas por Trump de aumentar em 90 mil os efetivos das forças armadas, em criar uma marinha de 350 navios e em ter mais cem caças. Contudo, nem nas declarações do novo presidente nem na análise da Forbes se fala de horizonte temporal para estas medidas, todas a exigir um esforço tremendo aos cofres dos Estados Unidos, só possível através de um défice orçamental maior ainda. Já a revista Military Times recordou que quando era candidato, o republicano se comprometeu a "reconstruir as forças armadas", o que passaria por um reforço orçamental na ordem dos 150 mil milhões de dólares, uma vez mais sem serem referidos prazos.

Hoje o orçamento militar americano continua a ser de longe o maior do mundo, cerca de 600 mil milhões de dólares anuais contra os pouco mais de 215 mil milhões da China (a Rússia surge em quarto lugar, com meros 66 mil milhões). Mas enquanto as despesas americanas até tiveram uma ligeira quebra em relação a há uma década, já as chinesas mais do que duplicaram no mesmo espaço de tempo, segundo o SIPRI, sigla em inglês do Instituto Internacional de Pesquisa para a Paz de Estocolmo. Claro que isto reflete a taxa de crescimento da economia chinesa, mas também as ambições de potência do antigo Império do Meio, visíveis na sua atitude no Mar do Sul da China, onde reivindica águas que outros países consideram suas.

Não foi, porém, a ascensão militar da China que desencadeou nos últimos anos uma súbita preocupação nos Estados Unidos e na Europa Ocidental com a necessidade de aumentar o investimento militar, mas sim a anexação da península da Crimeia pela Rússia em março de 2014.

Foi aí que começaram a soar as campainhas nas capitais ocidentais, a ponto de na cimeira da NATO em Gales, seis meses depois, os líderes lá presentes, incluindo o americano Barack Obama, terem emitido um comunicado final onde se pode ler que "as ações agressivas da Rússia contra a Ucrânia desafiam nos fundamentos a nossa visão de uma Europa integrada, livre e em paz". Além da retórica, também foi definida a necessidade de os Estados-membros começarem a aproximar-se do mínimo de 2% do PIB em termos de despesas anuais, que tirando os Estados Unidos poucos cumpriam. A austeridade deixava de ser uma desculpa ao alcance dos governantes europeus e isto ainda na época Obama e quando se dava como provável a sucessão por Hillary Clinton, democrata, ex-secretária de Estado do presidente cessante, e crítica de Vladimir Putin.

A questão dos 2% tornou-se central na campanha presidencial americana, com os media a destacarem o incumprimento generalizado, fosse sob a forma de pergunta ("Sabe quantos países da NATO cumprem?", CNN) fosse sob a forma de afirmação ("Só cinco países da NATO cumprem", Wall Street Journal). E Trump soube aproveitar a deixa, acusando os aliados dos Estados Unidos de prosperarem à custa da proteção americana, pouco gastando em defesa. Na mira estavam países como a Alemanha, a Itália e a Espanha, todos da NATO, mas também o Japão, um sólido aliado na Ásia Oriental.

Tendo em conta que Alemanha, Itália e Espanha gastam cada um menos de 1,5% do PIB em defesa e que o Japão se fica pelos 1%, se num abrir e fechar de olhos a fasquia dos 2% fosse cumprida por estes quatro países e ainda pela Austrália (outro aliado tradicional dos Estados Unidos, até tem aviões a bombardear o Estado Islâmico na Síria e no Iraque) os gastos mundiais em armamento subiriam 100 mil milhões de dólares, um aumento de 6%, maná para a indústria bélica, sobretudo americana.

Mas se Trump pegou na exigência americana de maior esforço aos aliados e fez dela uma bandeira sua, a verdade é que, ao contrário da opinião de Obama, não parece ver na Rússia uma ameaça. Bem pelo contrário, pois além dos elogios a Putin, várias vezes falou da necessidade de derrotar o terrorismo islâmico, considerando os russos um aliado na tarefa. E pouco a pouco é a China que surge como o adversário potencial da nova América rearmada, com os sinais a serem dados primeiro pelo próprio Trump com o telefonema recebido da líder taiwanesa e depois pelo seu secretário de Estado, Rex Tillerson, que durante a audição no Senado para ser confirmado no cargo comparou as edificações chinesas em ilhotas na Mar do Sul da China com a anexação da Crimeia e prometeu dar um sinal a Pequim de que não tem carta branca na região, bloqueando se necessário o aceso da marinha chinesa.

Neste contexto de desafio militar à China, que já estava também ameaçada por Trump com uma guerra comercial, ganha novo interesse aquilo que disse em março, no seu programa de rádio, Steve Bannon, hoje um dos principais conselheiros do presidente: "Vamos ter uma guerra no Mar do Sul da China no prazo de cinco ou dez anos, não vamos?". Da parte dos chineses, foi um alto responsável, citado pelo jornal South China Morning Post, a declarar que uma guerra com os Estados Unidos já "não é só um slogan" mas passou a ser "também uma realidade prática". Assustadora a perspetiva, pois ambos os países fazem parte do clube nuclear, mesmo que, uma vez mais, a clara supremacia seja dos Estados Unidos, só comparável ao arsenal russo.


A própria questão nuclear, que parecia resolvida com o fim da Guerra Fria há 25 anos, tem ressurgido tanto nas palavras de Trump como de Putin, sem se entender bem o que ambos pretendem quando falam de aumentar a sua capacidade. E para dissuadir quem? A Coreia do Norte? A dupla Índia-Paquistão? Israel? O Irão, que Obama considerava estar sob controlo.

Mikhail Gorbachev, o último presidente da União Soviética, alertou em fins de janeiro à Time que "tudo parece como se o mundo se estivesse a preparar para a guerra". Tem razão na leitura. Agora com Trump e Xi Jinping a medirem forças, como antes quando Obama e Putin já eram incapazes de se olhar de frente nas cimeiras, como aconteceu na do G20, em Hangzhou, em setembro. O mundo está muito perigoso.

Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Março 04, 2017, 06:30:38 pm
China aumenta investimento na Defesa

Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: P44 em Março 06, 2017, 02:58:51 pm
China to increase military spending by 7% in 2017

4 March 2017

China says it will increase military spending by about 7% this year, just days after Donald Trump outlined a boost to the US defence budget.

The scheduled announcement was made ahead of the annual National People's Congress (NPC) in Beijing.

China has been modernising its armed forces recently as its economy expands.
China's announced defence budget remains smaller than that of the US. But many China observers argue the real figure could be much higher.

The announcement marks the second consecutive year that the increase in China's defence spending has been below 10% following nearly two decades at or above that figure.

It means that total spending will account for about 1.3% of the country's projected GDP in 2017, the same level as in recent years, said government spokeswoman Fu Ying.

The precise figure for the country's military spending will be provided by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang when he addresses the NPC on Sunday.

Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump said he was seeking to boost defence spending by 10% in his proposed budget for 2018.

China's military build-up - and projection of naval power - has caused concerns in the region, where it has taken an increasingly assertive stance in territorial disputes.


Beijing has been building artificial islands on reefs in waters also claimed by other nations in the South China Sea.

Images published late last year show military defences on some islands, a think-tank says.
Defending its right to build, China has said in the past that it has no intention of militarising the islands, but has acknowledged building what it calls necessary military facilities for defensive purposes.


There have been sporadic incidents between US and Chinese ships in the South China Sea. Late last year, a Chinese ship seized a US navy underwater drone off the Philippines, but later agreed to return it.

Chinese ships have also been involved in clashes and stand-offs with ships from Vietnam and the Philippines.

Japan signed off a record defence budget last December in the face of territorial disputes with China in the East China Sea and North Korea's nuclear and missile threats.

In Beijing, Ms Fu said on Saturday that China advocated "dialogue for peaceful resolutions, while at the same time, we need to possess the ability to defend our sovereignty and interests".

A think-tank published images last year showing what it said were military facilities on some islands
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Vitor Santos em Março 06, 2017, 06:04:30 pm

Mesmo na 11ª posição neste ranking, o Brasil gasta mais de 70% deste orçamento em custeio, soldos e pensões sobrando pouco para investimentos e modernização.
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Dezembro 13, 2017, 02:20:14 pm
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lightning em Março 14, 2018, 06:56:52 pm
Médio Oriente campeão da corrida ao armamento

Venda de armas para Médio Oriente aumentou mais do dobro em 5 anos
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Abril 17, 2018, 02:36:22 pm
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Cabeça de Martelo em Maio 03, 2018, 02:28:53 pm
German defense budget angers critics — including the defense minister
By: Sebastian Sprenger

COLOGNE, Germany – Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet has approved a draft federal budget considered so insufficient for the armed forces by Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen that she submitted a formal note of protest along with her vote.

The unusual move pits the defense chief, a member of Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, against finance minister and vice chancellor Olaf Scholz of the Social Democratic Party, who crafted the budget primarily with an eye on domestic measures and the premise of incurring no additional debt.

The defense ministry stands to get €38.5 billion in 2018, which is roughly €1.5 billion more than last year, and €41.5 billion in 2019. That trajectory would bring Germany’s share of defense spending measured against gross domestic product to 1.28 percentage points in the next few years, Scholz told reporters in Berlin.

Defense ministry leaders believe they have a requirement for a plus-up of €12 billion by 2021. The money is needed to fix gaping equipment shortfalls and would underpin Germany’s goals in a militarily stronger Europe, the argument goes.

But Scholz’s budget plan only includes upwards of five billion Euros by then, and more than half of that would go toward covering personnel cost increases, according to officials. In response, German media reported that the ministry already was preparing a list of program cancellations involving European allies, including a German-Norwegian submarine cooperation.

Critics panned the budget proposal today, arguing it stands in stark contrast with Germany’s defense and foreign policy ambitions. Given the low availability of much of the Bundeswehr’s equipment, even the prospect of €12 billion more over four years would be the minimum to get problems under control, they said.

“Germany isolates itself with such an emphasis on domestic issues,” said Christian Mölling, analyst with the German Council on Foreign Relations. “We see here the left wing of the SPD pushing its positions.”

Finance minister Scholz today defended the outlook for defense, arguing that the Bundeswehr wouldn’t be able to spend more than is envisioned in the annual increases anyway. “It’s not like you can just go shopping for these things,” he said, referring to the long lead times and bureaucratic processes governing weapons programs.

Scholz even borrowed a military jargon term in his press conference today. Avoiding deficit spending in the budget would make the country more “combat-capable” in times of economic crises, he said.

Marcel Dickow, analyst with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, argues that funds beyond the increases Scholz has proposed would do nothing to solve the Bundeswehr’s “structural” problems.

“It’s true that equipment problems and shortages must be addressed,” he said. “But the failures are grounded in slow acquisition processes and bad management.”

Exactly where Chancellor Merkel falls in all of this is still unclear. Her spokesman Steffen Seibert today sought to downplay the prospect that the current budget proposal would fail to get Germany even close to the NATO-wide spending target of 2 percent of GDP by the middle of the next decade.

“I don’t see the contradiction,” he told reporters in Berlin. “I see the commitment to the NATO goal and the necessity to move in that direction. We are on our way there.”

Negotiations on the budget are expected to continue in the next two months. A final measure will go to parliament for consideration in early July.
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: perdadetempo em Maio 03, 2018, 08:39:54 pm
Documento do SIPRI com as tendências registada nas despesas militares para o ano de 2017 (

O facto mais interessante foi a descida de 20% das despesas russas. Pelo vistos está a começar a faltar-lhes o dinheiro.


Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Viajante em Maio 03, 2018, 09:06:57 pm
Documento do SIPRI com as tendências registada nas despesas militares para o ano de 2017 (

O facto mais interessante foi a descida de 20% das despesas russas. Pelo vistos está a começar a faltar-lhes o dinheiro.


Palpita-me que o buraco negro que foram os Jogos Olímpicos de Inverno de Sochi de 51 mil milhões de dólares!!!!!!!!!! Podem ter feito muitos estragos! ( e o Mundial de Futebol também estará a fazer mais estragos ainda ( e Sempre são mais 20 mil milhões de dólares!!!!! Vida de rico é assim, gastar mais de 70 mil milhões de dólares só em 2 eventos não é para todos!!!!!!!
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Maio 04, 2018, 03:53:17 pm
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: HSMW em Maio 05, 2018, 07:54:14 pm
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: HSMW em Julho 17, 2018, 08:38:28 pm

As exportações militares dos EUA para o mundo desde 1950.
E ainda dizem que a UE é má para o negócio...
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Março 14, 2019, 10:32:31 pm
Aliados aumentam gastos em defesa

Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Março 15, 2019, 05:08:42 pm
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Abril 29, 2019, 10:11:07 pm
Países gastam mais em armamento

Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Maio 01, 2019, 06:35:28 pm
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Daniel em Maio 11, 2019, 02:24:45 pm
Estas são as 20 maiores potências militares do mundo – onde fica Portugal no ranking mundial?

O site Global Firepower avaliou 137 países de acordo com vários critérios e ordenou-os por ordem do poderio militar. Ninguém estava à espera de ver Portugal no topo da tabela. A verdade é que conquistou um modesto 67.º lugar da tabela, com um orçamento de defesa de 3391 mil milhões de euros, 243 mil militares, 87 unidades na força aérea e 41 unidades na força naval.

O site Global Firepower (GFP) avalia o conjunto das organizações e forças de combate e de defesa de 137 países e criou um ranking para 2019. Entre alguns dos fatores de avaliação estão o orçamento disponível para a defesa do país, o número de militares e o número de unidades da força aérea e naval, assim como a produção de petróleo. Os dados sobre a capacidade nuclear ou a relevância do poder militar no contexto internacional não foram incluídos.

Veja quais são os 20 países com maior potência militar. Carregue na galeria para ver tudo.

De 137 países Portugal ocupa o modesto 67° lugar com um orçamento de 3391 mil milhões de euros  8) interessante ver países como a Argentina, Nigeria e Ethiopia a nossa frente.  :-P
Título: Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
Enviado por: Lusitano89 em Junho 05, 2019, 07:30:25 pm
França bate recorde de venda de armas em 2018