Who cares? We can crush them like bugs.
View attachment 372899
Taking a screenshot for use in a discussion forum can be helpful for illustrating a point; however, this type of data does not fully represent the complexity of the defense department's budget when comparing to other countries' defense budgets.
There are many reasons why the United States defense budget significantly exceeds those of other countries. One of the aspect of higher defense budget is that U.S. states allocate substantial resources to troop training, safety measures, and equipment maintenance.
The following is a comparison of the training duration for fighter pilots with those from other countries.
Country | Initial Flight Training | Advanced/Fighter Training | Annual Flight Hours | Remarks |
| US | IFT + UPT: ~200 flight hours total | ~16 IFF flights + MQT | 180–250 | High flight hour emphasis & simulation focus |
| India | Stage I & II: ~48 weeks (no detailed hr data) | Stage III + fighter OCU | Target 180; actual 120–150 | Infrastructure limits actual hours |
| China | Basic + Adv: ~260 flight hours | Conversion in service units | 100–110 | Training time reduced recently |
| France | ~100 flight + 30 sim hours | Fighter conversion (unspecified) | 147–162 (below NATO) | Working toward 180h target |
The United States spends an average of $12 billion annually on nuclear contingency planning and training. In contrast, India and China reportedly allocate no funds to nuclear contingency, and France also lacks a dedicated budget for nuclear disaster strategy, likely relying on the US.
At the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war, Russian tanks frequently broke down en route to Ukraine. Russia's defense budget is relatively low for its military size because it relies on outdated, poorly maintained equipment, making its expenses much less than those of the US.
If the United States reduces its role as a global superpower, withdraws from international affairs, and decreases its military presence worldwide, it is likely that military spending could be significantly reduced. However, this does not necessarily mean that U.S. military expenditures would match those of countries such as China or India, given the desire to maintain high-quality personnel and equipment to ensure the safety and security of service members.
It is noteworthy how conservatives and liberals differ in their approaches to various issues. Typically, liberals support reducing military spending; however, when a disaster, famine, or conflict arises elsewhere in the world, it is often liberals who advocate for deploying U.S. military resources to aid those in need. Conversely, conservatives generally prefer allocating funds to build a highly capable military, yet, except for neo-conservatives, most would rather maintain military forces within the United States rather than intervene globally.
