[Marauder]

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:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ ... 25/1/.html

também na aljazeera  
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... AAAEA2.htm

[Marauder]

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.  
 
 
 
HIGHLIGHTS:  
 
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.

fonte defense-aerospace.com

[Marauder]

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:
http://diariodigital.sapo.pt/news.asp?s ... ews=244151

[Lancero]

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

[Lancero]

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.

[Mar Verde]

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

[ferrol]

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.

[Lancero]

#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

[Jorge Pereira]

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”.

[Crypter]

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...

[typhonman]

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.

[P44]

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
KEY POINTS

    * 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
Blow

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-1 ... print=true

[typhonman]

10 anos sem Carriers, e quando chegarem um deles vai ser para venda....

[João Vaz]

...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).

[P44]

Os ingleses só têm de agradecer ás guerras no Iraque e no Afeganistão.