Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!david
From: david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Disparity in US vs Soviet weapons spending
Message-ID: <2174@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 21:04:30 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2174
Posted: Tue Dec  4 21:04:30 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 02:19:08 EST
References: <255@mhuxh.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 65

> John Litvin writes:
> 
> >I noticed in yesterday's (Wednesday) WSJ that The Supreme Soviet, or Parliament
> >was told that '85 arms spending will be equivalent of $22.38 billion.  As the
> >Journal noted, Soviet spending on arms is believed to be about 2X that amount
> >by some creative accounting.  Anyway, say they're spending about $50 billion
> >on defense.
> >
> >The same day's Journal had an article about how the Pentagon is firm on its
> >request for $333.7 billion budget for fiscal '86.  
> >
> >What gives?  How come there is a nearly 7X difference between the two countries
> >on spending?
> >
> Seriously, you are assuming that a dollar here buys the same a
> dollar would in the Soviet Union. (Actually, this is true.  What can
> you get here for a dollar these days?)  Labor, for example, is
> considerably more expensive over here.
> I presume the Soviet government owns its weapons factories in
> reality, even if it does not on paper.  Profit does not figure into
> their calculations.  Here the government must deal with private
> contractors that are not nearly so controlled.  I seriously doubt
> whether you could get away with charging the Soviet government $700
> for a hammer.  Here you get rewarded with a new contract to help
> build more and bigger technological wonders.
> 
> Mark Modig
> ihnp4!attunix!mom

    While this explanation is close to the mark, it still doesn't touch on
    the reason why the Soviets can get away with publicizing defense budgets
    that are actually ~5% of the amount they actually spend on weaponry.

    First, the average Soviet conscript soldier earns ~$3 a MONTH; compare
    that to a private in the American armed forces, who takes in more than
    $600 per month.  Also remember that Soviet soldiers are neither fed nor
    clothed as well an their American counterparts (read Suvorov's "Inside
    the Soviet Army" for the gory details).

    There is also no such thing as a pension for 99% of the folks in the Red
    Army.

    Thus, while the Pentagon is forced to spend about half its budget just
    paying its troops, past and present, the Soviets need spend much, much
    less.

    Secondly, the vast majority of Soviet military spending is hidden in
    other budget items.  For example, tanks are built by the Ministry of
    Heavy Machinery, and most of the money to be spent on them is in that
    Ministry's budget, NOT that of the Ministry of Defense.  Same for
    airplanes, missiles, etc.

    The way many analysts calculate the Soviet budget is, first of all, to
    assume that they pay their soldiers more or less like we do.  This
    eliminates the single largest asymmetry in comparing Moscow's military
    expenditures to ours.  Then, they estimate what it would cost the Sovs to
    build an equivalent number of equivalent hardware in the US based upon the
    same sorts of optimistic assumptions which lead us to habitually
    UNDERestimate the prices of our own weapons.  The result is a "best
    guess" at what the Soviets spend, in Western terms, on defense.

    The technology gap and all that other stuff that Mark mentions are
    elements of the puzzle, but very, very minor.

							--- das