[arialeks]

Is it disturbing from a US POV, or generally speaking? Because if I recall correctly, the US military spending has gone up significantly as well, also it's projected to rise even further in the future.

On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget? Or does it only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?

[dragonwriter]

> On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget?

Because Russia: (1) has ICBMs, which makes it a strategic global threat, even though they can't directly control territory that way, (2) because Russia has a large and capable conventional military than makes it a strong regional power threatening US interests and allies (it can't challenge the US on global force projection, which is the real driver of US military cost.)

> Or does it only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?

Soldier and suppliers being paid less is a factor, too, but the big factor in the fundamental asymmetry between what is necessary to be a regional power and what is necessary to be able to respond to threats by regional powers everywhere in the world.

[jotm]

And Russia can apparently influence world opinions and politics to a major unknown degree. Cyber security tends to get the short end of the budget stick, but Russians seem to excel at it.

[arialeks]

I read an article that says that Russia would be the country that benefits the most from US tariffs on import goods, because the EU must retaliate and therefore is much more likely to lift the sanctions of, of Russia.

Didn't want to believe it that the US government could be under Russian influence, but this move could very well prove that to some degree, or it just so happens that Trumps way of doing this aligns perfectly with their interest. On other note, people might just be reading into it too much, as it could all just be a move to, gain popularity in the US, thinking short term rather than long term.

EDIT: also recently watched a youtube video from a Google employee that says that the US government, just can't compete with big corporations for the talent pool, because government wages are limited, so yeah that certainly could be a issue for you guys.

[jimbokun]

"Because if I recall correctly, the US military spending has gone up significantly as well, also it's projected to rise even further in the future."

US military expenditures are also very disturbing.

[manfredo]

The US defense expenditure as a percent of GDP has gone down as a long term trend.

https://goo.gl/images/sQPFFy

[gaius]

US military expenditures are also very disturbing.

Yes and no. Remember how much goes on white elephants like the F35 and the Zumwalt-class. Does China have programmes like that?

[Slansitartop]

> On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget?

Total speculation: the US may spend more on R&D to develop unproven ideas into functional systems (with a lot of failure and trial and error). Then Russia can follows those now-proven development paths without needing to spend nearly as much on dead ends or original research.

Kinda like this link that another user posted here: https://io9.gizmodo.com/this-experiment-proved-that-anyone-c...

AFAIK, there has always been a lot of Russian copying/mimicry of US technology, from the Tu-4 to the Buran, but little in the other direction.

[olympus]

It doesn't just disturb the US, but every country surrounding China that is dominated by the strongest power in the region. The weaker countries have no choice but to accept unfavorable trade deals, give up ocean territory away from what is the accepted as international convention, etc.

China is big. China being ran by a dictator becomes a big bully.

[pishpash]

US is a big bully with its Monroe Doctrine, dictator or not. This is China's version.

[olympus]

Just because the US does it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it any less concerning for the other countries in the region. Moral relativism isn't a good defense.

[adventured]

It's a lot worse than that. The US has been a superpower for ~75 years. In that time, the US hasn't been annexing territory in Latin America (and yes, the US is guilty of repeatedly meddling in the affairs of nations in Latin America, and it deserves all the flack it gets for it).

The Monroe Doctrine for example has never included a drive to conquer Latin America and annex it. That doctrine is about driving out European colonialism. The territorial integrity of countries in Latin America has been well served by that shield. If you're Venezuela and your entire nation has collapsed (which it has), you don't have to fear someone conquering you due to extreme weakness and annexing you: the US would never allow that and everyone knows it. Historically, at nearly any other time or place, Venezuela would get invaded and conquered while they're so extraordinarily weak (they have the largest oil reserves on earth after all).

If the US were to behave like China is already (much less what might come next), the US would be threatening to annex Toronto and Vancouver, along with Baja Mexico and the entire Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.

We don't have to wait for bad behavior out of China. They just used their military to steal territory about four times the size of Texas from their neighbors.

[pishpash]

Not the best examples. The US entertained annexing Canada and did annex large swathes of Mexico (not in the last 75 years, true, if you want to arbitrarily draw the line there). China has plenty of stable agreed borders with weak and troubled neighbors. You have your rose colored views but they are somewhat laughable.

[Slansitartop]

> The US ... did annex large swathes of Mexico

Here's some context for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas

[Slansitartop]

> US is a big bully with its Monroe Doctrine, dictator or not. This is China's version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

> The Monroe Doctrine was a United States policy of opposing European colonialism in the Americas beginning in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to take control of any independent state in North or South America would be viewed as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States." .... The Doctrine was issued on December 2, 1823 at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved, or were at the point of gaining, independence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires.

Doesn't sound very bully-like.

[pishpash]

One of the proclaimed reasons for which Japan invaded Asia in the Second World War was to oppose European nations (Japan included Russia and the US in this) colonizing Asia. I am sure to Japan that didn't (and if you probe Japanese deeply, still doesn't) sound very bully-like. Yet, we know what happened.

Let's not beat around the bush. This is a rising country's way of saying, I pwn my backyard (so you can't pwn it) and I will use my might to defend it. Of course the one saying that doesn't sound like a bully to himself.

[Slansitartop]

> One of the proclaimed reasons for which Japan invaded Asia in the Second World War was to oppose European nations

Boy, what a false equivalence.

More from Wikipedia:

> The reaction in Latin America to the Monroe Doctrine was generally favorable but in some occasions suspicious. John Crow, author of The Epic of Latin America, states, "Simón Bolívar himself, still in the midst of his last campaign against the Spaniards, Santander in Colombia, Rivadavia in Argentina, Victoria in Mexico—leaders of the emancipation movement everywhere—received Monroe's words with sincerest gratitude".

This is an important point. The Monroe Doctrine wasn't a pretext to invasion and domination, it was actually assistance against those things. The people protected by it welcomed it.

Fast forward to the present day: Vietnam just hosted a US aircraft carrier, in a very symbolic move. It's not looking for China's help to drive the US out. China is in fact upping the ante in territorial disputes with its neighbors. China looks like a lot more like Japan in the 1930s than the US in the 1830s.

[dragonwriter]

> This is an important point. The Monroe Doctrine wasn't a pretext to invasion and domination, it was actually assistance against those things. The people protected by it welcomed it.

Nah, it was just empty posturing at the time.

Once the US had the capacity to put teeth into it (which wasn't for a long time), it became a pretext for invasion and domination, though.

[FridgeSeal]

Yes, and it is problematic when the US does it, and it will be problematic when China does it.

One country doing terrible things intervening in other countries is not an excuse for other countries to get involved and do the same thing.

[pishpash]

I made no recommendation about doing what others do, just pointing out some facts, why did everyone trip out defensively? Maybe it's the guilty conscience speaking.

And it is guilty conscience because you know that those problematic actions netted the aggressor (the most successful ones at any rate) plenty of benefits that many people still enjoy to this day.

I don't think the world should go down this road, and there are such things as international norms. That's why when one country ignores them continually and also gains from doing so, it becomes very disadvantageous to refrain and tempting to emulate. In that regard it absolutely matters to talk about the fact that "the US did it" and still does in a another way. Same goes for China or Russia.

[jotm]

I mean, tell that to South Korea, Japan or Poland.

[pishpash]

It's a concern because anything that challenges absolute dominance of the US-led order is considered destabilizing and threatening, but there is an asterisk, as in, "by whom"?

If you happen to benefit or be happy with the US-led order, say an ally or vassal (military, economic, or just ideological), then you will feel the same way, naturally. If you are not, you are not so concerned.

[golergka]

A couple of friends of mine worked as hardware engineers in Russian military (or, to be exact, some subsidiary). They later moved on to Intel and Nvidia, and overall you can consider them quite capable CPU engineers (I never got the hang of what exactly they were doing, and a lot of it was under NDA).

While working there, they got less than $10k annually. If they would be able to get H1B, it's my understanding they'd get at least $100k.

While a lot of folks move to commercial sector and other countries, there a lot of people staying there, despite low salaries. Doing essentially the same job that their counterparts in US are doing, quite often for 10 times less money.

[jotm]

Expenses are also lower, right? Basics like housing, food, utilities. Even in the west few actually need the bloated budgets they say they do. "Oh I can't live on 60K/year!". Give me a break.

[golergka]

Depends on the quality of life you're aiming at. Rent is certainly cheaper than in SF, NY and London, but isn't that far off from other american and european cities. Still, you can't compare even rents easily, because while european and american renters usually talk about one-bedroom apartments and sometimes don't even mention a common room, here apartments are measured in rooms (not bedrooms) and in my experience are usually smaller. Personally, I pay about $1k for one-room apartment, but it's 15 minutes walking distance from the office, in a very nice neighborhood, furniture and a view; typical rate would be $500 per month or so.

[bllguo]

some hypotheses:

80/20 rule - 20% of the budget gets you 80% of the capability. ofc these are not accurate percentages

not to say this doesn't happen in Russia, but everyone talks about how much excessive waste there is in the US military

like you say, cost for soldiers will be much less there

[Cacti]

US? It is far more disturbing to China's neighbors than to the US.

[adventured]

The majority of US military spending is on soldiers and things related to soldiers (VA care, housing, retirement, education, etc). Most people think the US is spending all of that money on hardware, when that's not the case.

Incomes and general costs related to soldiers in Russia are even lower proportionally compared to the ratio of the per capita output gap between the US and Russia. Russia doesn't take very good care of their soldiers in most regards. If you divert a higher share of your military spending to R&D and hardware, as opposed to soldiers, you could close the gap some (and the US wastes plenty of money on unnecessary things; so if Russia is more careful about that, and chooses to focus more on what they can really afford to make a dent in, they can further close the gap).

[gandhium]

> On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget?

It doesn't make sense to compare amounts directly - labour cost (and cost of life) in Russia is way cheaper.

And if we will compare %% of GDP - for the last decade Russia is spending same percentage (or even more) compared to US.

[scruple]

Which countries around the world are under the explicit and implicit protection of China's military?

[vondur]

Probably the whole nuclear aresnal thing.

[kolbe]

>On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget? Or does it only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?

Never underestimate the sheer waste and incompetence that the US Government is capable of achieving. My general model is that we get about ten cents in value for every dollar spent. So, all Russia needs to do is break even, and they would achieve close to military might of the US.

[AnimalMuppet]

So all Russia needs to do have all their spending deliver at 100% efficiency. That's not going to happen. Russia is a bureaucracy too...

[kolbe]

I don't know what 100% efficiency means. You italicized it, so it must mean something to you. But I was talking about return on investment. The US loses 90% of the money it invests, whereas, for example, companies like Boeing make money with their investments. So, all Russia would need to do it not lose money they invest. That's not what 100% efficiency means to me, but it's a very achievable goal.