Can you name the countries with the highest military expenditures? by geo25

Military Expenditures/year ($)	Country	Percent of GDP
548,531,000,000		4.0
63,643,000,000		2.0
57,392,000,000		2.4
52,565,000,000		2.3
42,751,000,000		0.9
38,238,000,000		3.5
37,237,000,000		1.3
33,136,000,000		9.3
32,103,000,000		1.8
24,716,000,000		2.5

Military Expenditures/year ($)	Country	Percent of GDP
23,773,000,000		2.6
15,940,000,000		1.2
15,477,000,000		1.5
15,321,000,000		1.9
14,721,000,000		1.2
12,135,000,000		8.6
11,663,000,000		2.1
9,866,000,000		1.5
9,706,000,000		3.3
9,498,000,000		2.0

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser.
If you do have Javascript enabled:
This site uses javascript to make the magic happen.
Please turn on javascript and reload this page, or use a more current browser (like Firefox)

Highly Armed Countries Quiz

by geo25

Created May 25, 2010 in Geography
Game Plays 5,282

Friend Scores and Standings

Loading friend results....

Top Games Today in Geography

Top Games with Similar Tags

Top User Games in Geography

Comment below threshold: show it

	geo25:	May 26th, 2010 at 03:16 GMT	5 points
	@godpaul25: Sorry about that. Thanks!

	France:	May 26th, 2010 at 04:25 GMT	12 points
	How can Canada spend money on something that doesn't even exist?

	D3nn1s:	May 26th, 2010 at 12:58 GMT	29 points
	How can Greece spend money it doesn't even have?

	Pit_trout:	May 26th, 2010 at 14:39 GMT	2 points
	@France: military ≠ army! It calls them by different names from other countries ("Land force command", "Maritime command", "Air command") but Canada has a reasonably serious military.

	danman23:	May 26th, 2010 at 16:40 GMT	7 points
	Pit: pretty sure he was kidding...

	harry1:	May 26th, 2010 at 17:36 GMT	6 points
	@France, you could say the same thing about the French...

	WinnieNicklaus:	May 26th, 2010 at 18:22 GMT	30 points
	Here's a fun fact -- US military expenditures: $549 billion. Every other country in the world, combined: $676 billion. Cost to provide clean drinking water to half of the 1.1 billion people who don't have it: < $30 billion.

	millandas:	May 26th, 2010 at 19:50 GMT	7 points
	If this was by percent, I'm pretty sure North Korea would be at the top with something like 30%.

Comment below threshold: show it

	danman23:	May 26th, 2010 at 20:29 GMT	5 points
	@johnlk: What, were you expecting belize to be on here?

	Handel:	May 26th, 2010 at 22:10 GMT	10 points
	Who voted WinnieNicklaus down?! War is only ever a waste. Of money, of time and, most importantly, of life. Imagine if all of those billions were invested in eliminating famine, establishing sustainable development at an international level and levelling the horrendously tipped social and economical balances present in most of the world's countries. All but 0.00001% of people would be better off for it.

	Raynard:	May 26th, 2010 at 23:03 GMT	-4 points
	lol is anything ever so obvious that you forget to type it in?? Thats how I was with France. last 10 secs, "Did I type it in" and I managed to get 20/20 Woot!

	Rossipotamus:	May 26th, 2010 at 23:12 GMT	-4 points
	there is not that much money

Comment below threshold: show it

	bujumbo:	May 27th, 2010 at 14:14 GMT	8 points
	WinnieNicklaus + Handel ftw.

	godpaul25:	May 27th, 2010 at 14:19 GMT	-3 points
	@Handel- imagine if you sold your computer and didn't have your cell phone and everthing else you don't need and fed a family for a lifetime off of just that. Get off your hypocritical high horse, and realize that we aren't in an idealistic utopia of a world unfortunately and strong militaries can and do accomplish a lot of good things as well as bad things

	Handel:	May 27th, 2010 at 21:59 GMT	9 points
	@godpaul25 Charity has been shown to be ineffective, so giving money to feed a family would hardly be productive. Contributing to the stabilisation of war-torn countries, on the other hand, would promote developed infrastructures which would in turn promote trade and provide jobs, allowing the families of which you speak to work to (at the very least) sustain themselves. This is an attitude which I actively promote, so to say that I am doing nothing is slightly unfair. That said, everyone (myself included) can always do more. I'm not hoping for a world in which everyone just about survives, but feel that if global wealth was distributed more equally then EVERYONE would be able to enjoy as comfortable a life as I do. Furthermore, to assert that I don't realise that the world is a utopia is incredibly patronising - I understand that, unfortunately, our world is a sad, sad place at the moment. I only hope that through a very gradual shift of ideals people will come to realise that it needn't be so. To use the positive outcomes of military spending as a justification for the atrocities committed by our armies is, to put it bluntly, laughable. Hitler did wonderful things for the German economy, but did that make him any less awful? The point I'm trying to make is that any single "good thing" that has come from a strong military could have been accomplished by so many different, more peaceful means. Finally, I'd like to stress that I have no expectations of you whatsoever. Though I'd love it if you read this and completely revised your outlook, I realise that this is a very crude conduit indeed. In fact, it's probably a bit sad that I've chosen this, a comment board on an internet quiz, as my forum. Oh well.

	geo25:	May 28th, 2010 at 00:22 GMT	6 points
	Calm down everyone...

	PublicEnemy:	May 28th, 2010 at 03:23 GMT	-4 points
	lmao at the a guy with the username france making fun at another countries military. A) Canada is a peaceful nation, B) We don't need a big military, we have the USA to protect us! C) France is pathetic, better watch you back, the Germans might be coming.

	dudemanbearpig:	May 30th, 2010 at 11:41 GMT	-3 points
	@Handel: TL;DR

	abanazerb:	May 31st, 2010 at 12:31 GMT	2 points
	Interesting quiz... although of course any such league table is bound to be based on value judgements. For instance, you could argue that virtually all government expenditure in places like Burma and North Korea is effectively military expenditure. Likewise the figures don't take into account some of the tricks that governments use to camouflage the true nature of their spending - for instance a few years ago when the British government closed their military hospitals. Wounded servicemen still have to be treated in pretty much the same way as before, but now their treatment is done as a part of the NHS and so does not look like military expenditure.

	Austerlitz:	May 31st, 2010 at 23:54 GMT	6 points
	@billy- As is sporcle tradition, Taiwan is always considered a separate country. The PRC and the ROC have acted as completely separate identities for 60 years now and quite frankly the only reason Taiwan is not officialy recognized by more countries is that the People's republic has such a large economy and does not trade with countries that recognize Taiwan. In principle, most people in the world, I believe, would agree that Taiwan is independent (including friends of mine from the Chinese mainland). Besides, Taiwan is awesome. Per person, it's about 10 times more powerful than China(and its richer too). If China could utilize its workforce as efficiently it would be the strongest country in the world.

	ElPez:	Apr 3rd, 2011 at 02:19 GMT	1 point
	I find it hard to believe that the Netherlands and Canada spend more money on its military than Pakistan, a nuclear weapons state.

	Laxon72:	Mar 31st, 2012 at 23:49 GMT	1 point
	@PublicEnemy we shouldn't always rely on other people to protect but we do have a good military they're just not as big as places like USA and China

	historybuff1861:	Apr 13th, 2012 at 16:57 GMT	1 point
	Just saying if global health was distributed then there would be people in the middle of Africa with a few thousand dollars and absolutely nothing to spend it on. If we send our troops to those war torn nation to stabilize them then they can just go back to life as normal and we can leave those villagers in the middle of the Sahara(for example) who want nothing to do with the outside world alone. Personally I think temporary recolonization of most of Africa via a mandate system and letting them go in ten years would maybe even reverse the affects that rapid decolonization had them. No we can not go back in time and save all the lives that it caused but we can definitely safe lives in places like the DRC or sierra leone etc. where there is constant civil war and genocide. Just putting in my 2 cents.