战略与国际研究中心-The-Balance-of-Western-Conventional-Forces_154页_563kb

Summary of The Balance of Western Conventional Forces

Core Content

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the military capabilities of Western countries, focusing on defense spending, military manpower, and conventional forces, including land, air, and naval capabilities. The data spans from 1985 to 2000, highlighting trends in military investment and force structure across NATO and other Western nations.

Main Points

Military Spending and Manpower

• World Defense Spending in 1999:

  • The total global military spending in 1999 was substantial, with the United States being the largest contributor.
  • The United States accounted for a significant portion of NATO, European, and former Warsaw Pact military spending.
  • Russia's defense spending was notable but less than the United States.

• Western Defense Spending (1999):

  • Western countries, excluding the United States, had lower defense spending compared to the US.
  • The document includes data on defense spending as a percentage of GDP for various European countries.

• Trends in Defense Spending (1990-1999):

  • European countries showed varying trends in defense spending as a percentage of GDP.
  • The United States maintained a high level of defense investment throughout the period.

• Defense Spending as a Percent of GNP (1985-1995):

  • The US defense spending as a percent of GNP was higher than other Western nations, including NATO and European countries.

• Procurement and RDT&E Investment:

  • Western countries allocated significant resources to procurement and research, development, and testing (RDT&E) in military equipment.
  • The US was the largest contributor to procurement and RDT&E investment in Western countries.

• Arms Sales Trends (1983-1999):

  • The US was the dominant arms seller, with significant sales to various countries.
  • Other Western countries, including the UK, France, Germany, and Canada, also played roles in arms sales, though to a lesser extent.

• Military Manpower (1999):

  • The document includes data on the active military manpower of major Western countries.
  • The US had the largest active military force, followed by NATO and European countries.

• Military Manpower Trends (1985-1999):

  • The US military manpower remained consistently high, while other Western countries saw reductions.

• Military Manpower vs. CFE Limits (2000):

  • Actual military manpower in Western countries was compared to the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) limits, highlighting the disparity between actual numbers and the agreed-upon limits.

Land Forces

• Western Active Army Strength in 2000:

  • The data includes a breakdown of armor, artillery, and multiple rocket launchers (MRLs) across Western countries.
  • The US had the largest number of tanks, armored infantry fighting vehicles (AIFVs), and armored personnel carriers (APCs).

• Western Armor (2000):

  • The US and Russia had significantly higher numbers of armored vehicles compared to other Western countries.
  • Countries like the UK, Germany, and France had smaller but still substantial numbers.

• Western Artillery (2000):

  • The US had a large number of artillery systems, including self-propelled (SP), towed, and multiple rocket launchers (MRLs).
  • Other Western countries had varying levels of artillery investment and deployment.

• Western Manpower in Land Forces (2000):

  • The US had the largest active army manpower, followed by NATO and European countries.
  • The document includes a detailed breakdown of manpower by service and country.

• Tanks in Western Forces (2000):

  • The US had the highest number of tanks, followed by Russia and other countries.
  • The data shows that Western countries had fewer tanks compared to Russia.

• Tanks vs. CFE Limits (2000):

  • Actual tank numbers in Western countries exceeded the CFE limits, indicating a potential over-capacity compared to agreed thresholds.

• ACVs (AIFVs and APCs) in Western Forces (2000):

  • The US and Russia had the largest numbers of armored combat vehicles.
  • Other Western countries had smaller but still significant numbers of AIFVs and APCs.

• ACVs vs. CFE Limits (2000):

  • Actual numbers of ACVs in Western countries were higher than the CFE limits, indicating a potential over-capacity in this category as well.

• Artillery vs. CFE Limits (2000):

  • The US and Russia had significantly more artillery than other Western countries.
  • Actual numbers exceeded CFE limits in several Western countries, indicating potential over-capacity.

Key Information

• The United States was the largest contributor to Western defense spending, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP and GNP.
• Western countries, excluding the US, had lower defense spending compared to the US and Russia.
• The CFE limits were exceeded in several Western countries, particularly in terms of tanks and armored vehicles.
• Military manpower in the US was significantly higher than in other Western nations, with the UK and France also having substantial forces.
• The data highlights the shift in military priorities and investments post-Cold War, with a focus on modernization and maintaining strategic capabilities.
• Trends in defense spending and manpower show a general decline in Western countries, except for the US, which maintained a high level of investment.

Conclusion

This document provides a detailed overview of the military balance among Western countries, emphasizing the US's dominant role in defense spending and manpower, while other Western nations had varying levels of investment and force strength. The comparison with CFE limits indicates that some Western countries had significant over-capacity in conventional forces. The data underscores the importance of maintaining military readiness and the strategic implications of defense spending and manpower trends in the post-Cold War era.