This is just picky, but I'm annoyed by China and India being switched at the end. If it's supposed to be from biggest to smallest, keep it that way!

Wow, that's one big bullet! Very effective visual, though kinda dishonest. We spend less than ten times that of the next country, yet the final bullet is more like 100 times the size of Japan's bullet, if you look at area rather than just height.

I do think that military spending in the U.S. is insufficiently overseen, but the creaters of this graph seem to be more focused on emotional effect than dry description of the facts.

Of course, whatever your stance on the Israeli government, we all should be able to agree that a lot of Israeli military spending actually is subsidized by the United States government; so, one could say that that Israeli military spending actually is a form of U.S. military spending.

Above all, I think that those subsidies from the U.S. are a hold-over from the Cold War; there have been other factors, of course, but I think that the U.S.-Israeli ties mainly were cemented because Israel was supposed to help in the fight against 'commies.'

(Just to be clear - I don't think that I'm even criticizing any of this right now --
except, perhaps, the Cold War rhetoric about 'communists.')

The government in Saudi Arabia also has been aligned with the United States (and, at the same time, with anti- U.S. terrorists, some say). I know that Saudi Arabia has received some resources from the U.S. government, but I don't have a sense of the quantities, offhand.

Again, the Cold War is very relevant here -- because that history is still lingering, in some respects.

In the history of relations between the U.S. government and Saudi Arabia, a 1945 meeting between King Abdul Aziz and President Roosevelt was relatively significant.

Foreign oil became more of a priority in the United States after the early 1970s; oil outputs in the U.S. have been declining since then, because of a national oil peak.

Sensible comparison. I mean, after all, the US, much like Israel, is surrounded by countries that have been constantly threatening or actually attacking it for decades now...

TB - US military aid to Israel isn't because of the cold war, it's because the US was a party to the Israel-Egypt peace agreement in the early 80's. That's why Israel and Egypt are the two biggest military aid receivers from the US. (Yes, Egypt. You never hear about that, do you?)

Also, defense spending as percentage of GDP might change the order of both these graphs considerably, putting the US in a more positive light.

the US, much like Israel, is surrounded by countries that have been constantly threatening or actually attacking it for decades now…

I'd understand Cuba and, before the 90s, the USSR, but it's been a very long time since Canada or Mexico were at war with the USA, and nowadays Russia is an ally and Cuba pretty much harmless.

Well, I don't have historical statistics, but didn't Israel received significant U.S. funding prior to the 1980s?

Regardless, a pattern of U.S. intervention in the Middle East certainly was established during the Cold War. To an extent, Middle Eastern rulers were treated like pawns in a chess game between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (as were governments in other countries). The Middle East definitely was one front in the Cold War. Arms and money have been a way of trying to court rulers abroad -- when they haven't been overthrown through coups (as in Iran, awhile back).

Anyway, the graphics aren't actually about history (in any direct sense);
and there certainly is room for debate about this history.

You are kidding yourself if you believe that China figure. It is much higher.

Elena - I was being cynical.

TB - I'm sure they did, but nowhere near as much money was given to Israel prior to that. Up until the 1970's, I believe, Israel's primary supplier of military needs was Europe (France, if I'm not mistaken).

Of course the Middle East, like every other region in the world, was part of Cold War politics. But now, US investment in the area has more to do with the perceived "clash of civilizations" and "war on terror" than with remnants from the cold war.

So, to bring up some sobering perspective:

Talking about defense spending per capita is somewhat silly. You'll notice that China, India, Brazil, and Russia -- the last and lowest of the per-capita figures, appearing in reverse order -- are among the top 9 most populous countries in the world, and appear here in reverse order of their population sizes. Figure that in the normal case your army only has to be as big as the other guy's and this makes sense. Normal Army size (and normal army budget) divided by population = per capita defense budge needs, and that goes down the more capitae you have.

Considering this graphic is from 2002 and considering what happened in 2001, the USA figures seem somewhat reasonable. We went to war. then we ramped up for another war. Expect a big spike in US military spending that year (and subsequent years). What would this look like before 9/11 I wonder?

And Israel, of course, is surrounded by countries that wish its death on a daily basis. We should probably consider Middle Eastern countries -- especially tiny ones with lots of enemies on all sides -- outliers on this graph.

So the real question is, what's unusual about this picture?

Another thought about the per-capita spending graph:

2002 was also an unusual year in Israeli military history. The spring of 02 marked the height of the 2nd intifada, in terms of Israeli deaths. If this figure uses stats from 2001, it's worth considering that the second intifada started in September 2000 and probably distorted the trend of Israeli military spending in 2001.

"But now, US investment in the area has more to do with the perceived “clash of civilizations” and “war on terror” than with remnants from the cold war."
Also that whole "Israel as bait for the Apocalypse" thing...

Whenever I see such an incredible graph, I always wonder how a mind boggling number has still failed to purchase world peace and prosperity.

At the same time, you've got to agree that the incidence of devastating world wars over the past 60 years has been remarkably low.

I used this in class today; thanks!