1. United States, $528.7 billion, 46%
    

2. Britain, $59.2 billion, 5%
    

3. France, $53.1 billion, 5%
    

4. China, $49.5 billion, 4%
    

5. Japan, $43.7 billion, 4%
    

6. Germany, $37.0 billion, 3%
    

7. Russia, $34.7 billion, 3%
    

8. Italy, $29.9 billion, 3%
    

9. Saudi Arabia, $29.0 billion, 3%
    

10. India, $23.9 billion, 2%

This week the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
released its latest research figures for military spending. They found that in 2006, the world spent $1,204,000 million (ie $1.2 trillion) on the military. [1] This is the eighth consecutive annual rise in military spending, which is now reaching levels not seen since the Cold War. [2]

The US accounted for 46% of the total in 2006, at $528,700 million (at 2005 prices). [3]

After the US, the largest military spender was once again the UK, which accounted for 5% of the world total in 2006, at $59,200 million (at 2005 prices). [3] This is despite the government's belief that, 'There is currently no major conventional threat to Europe...' [4]

France, China, Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy, Saudi Arabia and India complete the highest ten spenders, together accounting for 77% of all military spending worldwide, at $888,700 million (at 2005 prices). [3]
This is exactly twice the amount that the UK's Stern Review estimated it will cost the world to stop runaway climate change, at $444,000 million per year (1% of global GDP). [5] It is eighteen times the estimated current shortfall in the spending needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals to reduce global poverty significantly by 2015. (This shortfall is estimated at $48,000 million and the overall cost for achieving the Goals is estimated at $135,000-195,000 million per year to 2015.) [6]

In 2005, the US spent 19 times as much on the military ($534,100 million) as on overseas development assistance ($27,622 million); the UK spent almost five times as much on the military ($53,600 million) as on overseas development assistance ($10,767 million) [7]

[Note: these are comparisons for 2005, which is the most recent year for which statistics for overseas development assistance are available].

In 2005, the UK spent 50 times as much on the military ($53,600 million) as on 'spending policies that tackle climate change' (£545 million [= $1,072 million]). [8]

[Note: these are comparisons for 2005, which is the most recent year for which statistics for overseas development assistance are available].

The military is responsible for high levels of carbon emissions. According to Scientists for Global Responsibility, the US military causes about 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions (1% of national total or equivalent to all of Finland's annual emissions); the UK military causes about 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions (1% of national total or equivalent to all of Senegal's annual emissions). [9]

[1] SIPRI, http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/...

[2] SIPRI, http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/...

[3] SIPRI, http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/...

[4] MoD, http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...

[5] HM Treasury, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...

[6] UN Millennium Project, http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/...

[7] OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/18/37790990.pdf

[8] Hansard, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/...

[9] SGR, http://www.sgr.org.uk/ArmsControl/...

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament today agreed with the findings of the world’s top thinktank. SIPRI, which monitors global peace, has claimed there is an increased risk that nuclear weapons will be used in the future.

The annual report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute on armaments, disarmament and international security noted that the five states with the biggest nuclear arsenals (USA, Russia, Britain, France and China) are all updating or plan to update their nuclear weapons systems, despite a gradual decline in overall warhead numbers. [see note 1]

Commenting on the trend towards lower yield weapons, Ian Anthony, a nuclear expert at the Institute said “The concern is that countries are starting to see these weapons as useable, whereas during the Cold War they were seen as a deterrent.”

Kate Hudson, Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said, “Many people wrongly thought that the conclusion of the Cold War signalled the end of the nuclear threat, but with states such as Britain modernising their weapons systems and others making more ‘usable’ lower-yield weapons, the risk is large and growing. Now more than ever we need a Nuclear Weapons Convention, a draft of which is already lodged at the UN, so that nuclear weapons join biological and chemical weapons as part of history, rather than something that can make civilisation history.”

The report also analyses world military expenditure for 2006, which is estimated to have reached $1204 billion – a 3.5% increase in real terms since 2005 and a 37% rise since 1997. SIPRI also predicts that the current and long-term commitments for the US alone in relation to the war in Iraq will take the bill to $2267 billion by 2016.

Kate Hudson further commented, “The UK has the second highest military expenditure in the world, yet only the fifth biggest economy. The UK spent $59bn on defence last year – almost as much as China and Israel combined. [see note 2] We need a debate about what can provide real security for this country, which spends much more per person on defence than the average European state, and whether up to £76bn on Trident would be better spent elsewhere."

On a similar theme Elisabeth Sköns, SIPRI's Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme Leader said “It is worth asking how cost-effective military expenditure is as a way of increasing the security of human lives, if we talk about avoiding premature deaths and disability due to current dangers. For example, we know that millions of lives could be saved through basic health interventions that would cost a fraction of what the world spends on military forces every year”.

Notes

1. The report is based at http://yearbook2007.sipri.org/

2. Chinese military spending for 2006 is cited as $49bn by SIPRI. The figure for Israel is $11bn. All available from http://first.sipri.org/non_first/milex.php

3.For further information and interviews please contact Ben Soffa, CND's Press & Communications Officer, on 0207 7002350 or 07968 420859

4. SIPRI should be contacted on +46 8 655 97 00 or via Evamaria Loose-Weintraub on el-weintraub@sipri.org

5. According to a July 2006 ICM poll, 59% of the British public opposes a replacement of Trident when presented with a cost of at least £25 billion. Click here for a full copy of the poll.