Rising military budgets in the US, China and Japan

Several Western news resources like to announce in their titles that China or that Japan has raised their military budget again. They make it sound as if these countries would be getting ready for war (it is always left open with whom). But this is a mistaken impression they create. The news are not fake: usually the data is in the articles. However, the tone of titles and their wording is obviously misleading. And the data is usually not presented in comparison with relevant trends and info, so it looks scarier than it is.

So, some basic numbers. Most of the following come from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) which is nicely compiled on wikipedia, and also links to the original.

Biggest spenders
At the moment the biggest spender is the US, the second is China, third Saudi Arabia, followed by Russia in the fourth place. Then we have India, the UK, France, and Japan in the 8th place. Germany and South Korea make up the top ten.

GDP relative spending
In terms of GDP the US and China are the biggest economies in the world. Japan follows in the third place, Germany fourth. So Japan and Germany place much further back, they spend much less relative to what they have, than many other countries.

To look at some numbers

the US spends 3.1% of its GDP
China 1.9%
Saudi Arabia 10%
Russia 4.3%
India 2.5%
UK 1.8%
Japan 0.9%
Germany 1.2%

This indicates which countries place a huge emphasis on developing and maintaining their military strength.
It is of course influenced
1) by how risky the country's environment is (but then Japan's should be much higher of course),
2) by how big the country's GDP is (the UK's 1.8% is just a bit bigger than Japan's 0.9% for example), and
3) by local prices (China can pay much less for most military personnel and products because labour costs are lower and many corporations are fully or partially state owned).

Political factors

In some cases the spending is just defense oriented, in some cases it is upkeep and development oriented, and in some cases it is potentially (or very likely) aggression oriented.
For example much of Germany's spending simply goes to upkeep. Japan is developing a good deal this year, but this is mostly defense oriented: since China and Russia, its giant neighbours, are upgrading and developing their military very fast Japan needs to spend on defense. The USA, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are developing attacking capabilities, spending great amounts on research and new weapons (both development and purchasing).
Of course all countries look at their own safety, but with some we also know that they have territorial ambitions (China has asserted its claim to Taiwan and the South-China sea, so its preparing to fight if others don't simply allow it to capture those territories).

Real terms
It is also important to look at spending in real terms. That is, how much actual money has been spent. The top three are the US, China and Saudi Arabia.

The US has spent 610 billion US dollars (same for all others: billion USD)
China 228
Saudi Arabia 69.4
Russia 66.3
India 66.9
France 57.8
UK 47.2
Japan 45.4
Germany 44.3
South Korea 39.2

In this light we can see that the US surpasses by far all of the others. However its forces are spread out all over the world. China's and Russia forces, although seemingly cheaper, are much more concentrated which might mean that they are stronger in some locations.

It is also telling that the three biggest Europeans don't spend together as much as China.

Japan doesn't spend much more than South-Korea and already that is controversial with voters and opposition politicians. Both Japan and South-Korea have US forces stationed within their borders and could - hopefully, but who knows with Trump - count on the US's support in case of aggression. Still, one wonders whether they shouldn't build up their own, homegrown industry more in the current climate of an expansionist China, and an assertive Russia.

Rise in budgets year on year

This is important because it shows how much need the countries see there is for development. This can reflect worries about their neighbours or rivals, as well as intentions to turn to the offensive.

I didn't look that much into the data on this front but the numbers on the US, China and Japan have been much commented on, so it is easy to have. Again, it is characteristic of reporting that the enormous raise in the US budget is discussed, but usually in fairly realistic terms. I think this is fair, given that the US is in a competition for hegemony in many areas with Russia, China, in West-Asia, in the Arctic, and increasingly also in Africa. This might be morally wrong - as most military building is - but strategically necessary - because if the US would behave better that wouldn't mean the two other superpowers would stop misbehaving.

Anyway, the reported number is 10%, which is "huge" as one guy likes to say.

The reporting on China and Japan has, as usual, been much more alarmist. The funny thing is that both follow trends and both could be anticipated, so, shouldn't be very surprising. Also, from a strategic point of view maybe the Japanese budget doesn't make that much sense - why don't they increase a lot more!? - but the political situation and Japan's foreign policy makes sense of this too - Japan places emphasis on international law, economic relations and rejects employing offensive weapon system, despite all the panic and fear mongering to the contrary that we saw in the Chinese and US media. (The Guardian published a refreshingly well-contextualised short piece on this one.)


China's spending is now officially around 175 billion USD but expert estimate it to be around 225-230b USD actually. Sadly their budget is notoriously secretive. Not even citizens can access it.
This means a raise of 8.1% from last year's spending.

China likes to point out that in terms of GDP their spending has been decreasing. This is just smokescreening of course: its true, but the real numbers, the actual amount has still been rising fast, since the economy grew so much in the last 30 years.

This is in line with their enormous military capability build up. We see that China is getting bolder and bolder. Earlier its goal was just to have sufficient defense against its immediate neighbours (India, Russia). Recently it also tries to dominate its smaller neighbours (Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand) and threaten seriously Japan and South-Korea. It also asserted that it claims Taiwan and the South-China Sea, so, it needs to be able to deny access to these areas to the US military stationed in East- and South-East Asia, and it also needs to be able to counter a possible reclaiming attack. The numbers make sense in this light. Of course that they make sense doesn't mean that they are morally or politically encouraging. China is on the road to aggression under Xi's leadership, and this should worry all of us. Maybe a leadership change would help.

Japan's spending was raised by 2.5%. Yup, this is what the big excitement is about. (Up next! Another RECORD setting 2.1% raise is in line! Notice that almost all the titles use the word 'record. I know its a hard fight out there for readers but this is just ridiculous.) This is in line with their policy to pursue diplomacy and rely on the international legal tools and organizations rather than military pressure. Japan has been following this policy coherently since the end of WWII, so for more than 70 years. Abe is possibly the most hawkish and influential prime minister since the 1960s and still, Japan didn't turn into an aggressor, no matter how much the Chinese media would like to portray him like that. And of course the Japanese spending is still eminently transparent, as it should be in a democracy.

So, think a bit, look into the context and don't judge too quickly when you see a title and a few numbers. Yes, there are rising tensions, yes there is a buildup. But no, no one is going to jump against the others' throat in the next year or two, and no, Japan is not turning into an imperialist superpower again. China is still a long way from contesting US dominance on a global scale, but it can do this already in the local theatre of operations (or war, if there will be one). Russia maintains high spending, Saudi Arabia is building up like crazy, and Europe is maintaining a sensible apparatus.

Migrant and refugee children forced into prostitution

It had been known now for some time, but this article today in the Guardian calls attention to it again:
Many migrant and refugee children are travelling alone, they are extremely vulnerable, and there are plenty of smugglers as well as locals - in Greece, in Italy, in Hungary, in Serbia, and so on - who take advantage of them. Some of them are forced to have sex, some cajoled into it, some raped, some told to do it to earn money if they want a transport organized to their parents.

The UNHCR (the UN Refugee Agency) also has a longer, detailed report on the issue with all the data. Read it here.

See more in the article here.

To see more info on the issue read a report on the high numbers of disappearing children, even in countries like Germany.

I find it quite disgusting and horrific that while all this happens people like Mr Orban continue to present migrants as some kind of grave danger to us. It is vulnerable people who are at risk and should be helped. Hungary had been urged many times of course to do something about the people stranded on its borders but it blatantly refuses to offer any assistance to anyone.

At the same time Orban's circles are making billions (in Euros) on selling Hungarian citizenship to foreigners from outside the EU. It doesn't matter who you are, for 250,000 you can become a Hungarian (and thus an EU) citizen. The scheme is operated by friends and business partners of Orban and other high ranking FIDESZ politicians (most prominently the very much mafia-boss like Antal Rogan). After much criticism they have halted the programme, but only temporarily. It is of course all legal: FIDESZ uses its two-thirds parliamentary majority to pass laws like this.

Some misunderstandings around war, WWII, and using nuclear bombs

The Onion ran a short piece on Obama's visit to Hiroshima.

Some not too smart US citizens took it seriously. I tried to comment - and might have been too sarcastic - to shed some light of their confusions.

One of them lectured me in a very misguided way then. Obviously, he hasn't read anything about history, about war, military strategy, economy, diplomacy, or politics. This is not a problem: most people don't have time and energy to do that. They work, care for their family, spend time with their friends, and are good people.
This doesn't change the fact that someone who does not know even the basics about the topic should not lecture anyone else about it. So: please take the following discussion as an example of what popular misunderstanding not to repeat and believe, and on how to separate issues more finely to understand them better. I'm a pro, I have been trained to do this kind of thinking, this is part of my job, and I'm happy to do it. I don't want to offend you or lecture you, I want to help everyone see clearer.



Here is his message:
"Sorry Steve, but I understand WW2 and firebombing both. The Japanese were Hitlers buddies, along with Russia - going to divide the world between themselves after they killed most of us. Well - too damn bad they got nuked. Haven't you ever studied what the allies found after the war? Americans being experimented on, with body parts removed. The Japanese dissected Americans, while keeping them alive in vats. Almost all were mercy killed by Allied troops. That doesn't even cover what the Germans did. You obviously don't know much about the cultures of the time. Besides, war isn't fair.. It's kill them - before they kill you."


And here are the corrections:

"Hi YY,

You are mixing up a number of issues.
1. You are mixing up a) whether dropping the nukes were justified, and b) whether the firebombing was justified.
2. You also mix up whether a) the nukes were justified, and b) whether Japan had to be defeated,
and
3. You mix up the a) ambitions of Japan, with b) the ambitions of Germany,
and also
4. You mix up a) the goals of a very small number of extreme radical Germans (and maybe Japanese?) with b) the goals of the fairly sane but too ambitious military of b1) Japan, and what is again a separate issue of b2) Germany.

Now first of all:
I) No matter what a country's government does, and no matter what a country's military leadership does, is it justified to drop nuclear bombs.
II) By the time the US leadership decided to drop the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima the US leadership knew both that a) Japan would not be able to continue the war and would eventually surrender, and b) that most of the casualties would be civilians.




Next: Did either the German, or the Japanese government or military leadership plan to 'kill us all' as you say. The answer is no. The Germans had plans to eradicate masses of Jewish people, homosexual people, people with mental and bodily disabilities, and Slavic people. But that's it.
The Japanese people didn't have any such ambitions. Mixing up the German cause of eliminating Jews with the military-medical experiments that one secret and special Japanese military unit carried out is a big mistake.

Next: You say war isn't fair. Well think of it this way: It is US policy since many years ago that if any of the resource supplies of the US are threatened - meaning also: if any country doesn't want to sell something to the US - then that is to be treated as a threat to national security, and hence as a military issue.
I think that isn't a very good principle, but it is what the US follows.
The Japanese government followed the same principle when it bomber Pearl Harbor. The bombing followed years of strategic manouvering by the US government and military which aimed at cutting off the Japanese from crucial resources and supplies. If you take the US principle as the standard, the Japanese were justified in taking the US to be their enemies and attack them.

You also say the following: The Germans, the Japanese, and the Russians were going to divide the world between themselves. This is wrong again. The Germans and the Japanese were fighting against the Russians.
They both lost in the war. The world hence got divided between the US, Russia (or rather the Soviet Union) and the European powers. I don't necessarily think that this was a very bad consequence overall, although it had some horrible results in Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, etc. I do think on the other hand that what you are saying is that only evil powers divide the world between themselves.
Well, let me tell you something: all powers are trying to dominate, the US included. The US follows a very well and carefully planned policy of keeping its borders safe, and also having allies on the other side of the oceans. Hence its alliance with the EU, and with Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. The US is not a benevolent, kind might. It is a well led huge power. When the interests of the US were threatened it stepped in with its military and didn't shy away from killing in other countries, from waging war, from killing civilians and from using torture to obtain military intelligence. It is not a saintly power, just as Germany and Japan weren't.

Also: You don't understand much about war. No sane politician or military leader aims solely at killing. They aim at winning a war. A war is won when the opponent sees that they can't continue. For this you don't have to kill their entire population. That would be a crime against humanity, no matter which country would do it. You aim at weakening the other country's infrastructure, its production lines, its access to natural resources (iron, oil, etc.), and its military. You don't aim at killing.

You might want to listen to the interview with Robert McNamara 'The Fog of War', you read the book on Japan by Ian Buruma titled 'Inventing Japan', and read in general more about history, politics, economy, and war."