According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military spending reached 1,118 billion dollars in 2005.  A sad record, amounting to 173 dollars for each inhabitant of the planet. 

The United States of America alone accounts for 48% of worldwide military spending, compared with 4% to 5% each for Great Britain, France, Japan and China.  SIPRI made the observation that this increase in American spending is largely the result of funds supplementary to the regular budget, which clearly indicates “that financial decisions have bypassed Congress for the President.”  In addition, the data collected by SIPRI indicate that, in 2004, the three principle armaments manufacturers, outside of China, were Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman – all American companies.  

The Institute explains that the increasingly high cost of raw materials and fossil fuels is one of the reasons for the increase in military spending.  SIPRI concludes that this has allowed countries such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaidjan and Russia to free up funds for military expenditure, thanks to sales of petrol and gas.  It adds that the general evolution of the international community with regard to peace and security results that the idea that disarmament is a direct route towards development is losing speed. 

On the other hand, the study tells us that Russia, the United States and the European Union were the three major exporters of conventional armaments during the period 2001 – 2005, with respective levels of 31, 30 and 27 per cent.  

Regarding nuclear arms, no one will be reassured to learn that the eight States which admit to possessing them maintain close to 12,100 deployable nuclear warheads : the United States (5,521), Russia (5,682), the United Kingdom (185), France (348), China (about 130), India (about 50), Pakistan (about 60), Israel (between 100 and 200).  For SIPRI, the “democratic” control of nuclear armaments is almost never applied: “the Indian governments used nuclear testing in order to increase its popularity; in Russia, the implosion of the Soviet Union resulted in an almost impossible civil control; and in Pakistan, uncertainty exists with regard to the future of the nuclear arsenal after the regime of President Pervez Musharraf.”

 
In its Report on Human Development 2005, the United Nations Programme for Development remarks that military spending significantly exceeds public aid for development in rich countries.  In this way, according to the statistics for 2003, in the United States, for example, the ratio is 25 to 1.  It is 26.5 to 1.4 in Greece.  The United Kingdom presents a ratio of 13.3 to 1.6, France of 10.7 to 1.7.  According to UNDP, it would cost a bit less than 7 billion dollars a year over the next 10 years to assure that poor countries attain the millennium objectives for development.  UNDP makes clear that this investment is nevertheless less than the 7 billion dollars that Europeans spend annually on perfume or the 8 billion dollars that Americans spend on cosmetic surgery. 
Sources

SIPRI :  http://www.sipri.org/

UNDP “World report on human development 2005”

http://www.undp.org/