NationStates Jolt Archive

The rather new nation of the National Commonwealth Republic would like to expand its armed forces, however, I do not know where to begin. Would anyone be able to give me advice as to what arms I should invest in and how?

My government budget is a mere, $19,803,207,900.00, most of which is in
social programs. How much should go to the military?

Any more than 10% and you risk paralysing your economy. If you wish, I can suggest defence strategies tailored to your geography and approach to the use of military force, and then Varessan Military Industries can (probably) provide the equipment with which to apply that doctrine.

Training and personnel exchange programs are also available.

Field Marshal Harris
Chief of Defence Force
Defence Minister
Varessan Commonwealth

I tend to disagree with that figure, the U.S spends nearly 28% of its total budget(excluding social security expenditures) on defense. Although, I think you're 10% figure may be referring to total GDP, although the N. Korea, Mali, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Oman, Eritrea, and Quatar all spend more than that. None of their economies would be considered stellar by any means, however it is clearly possible. The average for a western government is between 2 and 4 percent, with the U.S spending 3.2 percent of its GDP on defense.

To answer the original question, since you intimated at a socialist government, I will assume 75% of your budget goes towards social programs. That leaves you with 4,950,801,975 roughly 5 billion dollars to divide between infrastructure, bureacracy, other crap, and defense. Using the 28% U.S figure that will leave around 1 1/4 billion a year for military purposes.

Expect a small, lightly armed force, suitable mostly for defense.

My suggestion will only cost a few thousand dollars. On ever road between borders in your country, put a sign on the road saying it is under construction. Then, put a sign saying "no u-turn". They will be stranded, unable to move, and your enemies will starve to death.

Setting aside your budget for a moment.

For a rough giude to a realistic defensive armed forces you should be looking a tthe following:

Land: you should aim for 1 active divsion and 2 reserve or administrative divsions for every 25-35million citizens (based on a quick and dirty UK model)
You should be looking at your primary division to be at the heaviest a mechanised infantry force (your second active divsion could be a armored disvion) with your reserve force priamrily being light and mechanised infantry.

As to the exact make up of an "average" mechanised divsion in terms of vehicles youa re looking at:
200-250tanks (usually MBTs but it depends on your terrain)
700-800 APCs/IFVs (including command vehicles)
300-400 Missile vehicles, SPGs, artillery peices and airdefence systems
400-500 other vehicles (trucks, jeeps and engineering equipment)
and anywhere from 10-50 helicopters of various descriptions
in terms of men that woudl cover 16,000-20,000men

A mechansised infantry divsion is a good biulding block and can easily be tailored for your exact needs ie lots of jungle and swamps, then swap the MBTs for light amphibious designs, or with light missile carriers, or even with helicopters.

I hope this helps a bit.

Since you have compulsory there are two ways to do army one is regural all men to army that lasts minimum 6 months maximum about two years (Russia) that in war you would have with your 9 million population 600,000-900,000 men this would be cheapest way. As you would need only 15,000-20,000 professionals.

My way is that every man goes to studies of one day as their military. All mine soldier are professionals, except reserves. This way you could have something like 30,000-45,000 professionals with better equipments (as Ireland has army of about 11,000) including air forces etc.
More expensive.

visit my storefront for weapons :!: Visit Battle Group Storefront (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136344)

Challenger 2 8)

Credonia is the leader in the use of strategic and tactical air forces. We have only sustained VERY FEW casualties with our air forces and we have been in a great many wars. http://www.geocities.com/credonia

I'll let the site speak for itself

Credonia is the leader in the use of strategic and tactical air forces. We have only sustained VERY FEW casualties with our air forces and we have been in a great many wars. http://www.geocities.com/credonia

I'll let the site speak for itself

Credonia is the leader in the use of strategic and tactical air forces. We have only sustained VERY FEW casualties with our air forces and we have been in a great many wars. http://www.geocities.com/credonia

I'll let the site speak for itself

Starblaydia's Military Storefront (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3073204) is perfect for newer nations as our wares are cheap and useable in any environment and even low-intensity warfare.

Our stuff is more expenisve, but its good: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144340&highlight=

:) Thank you, very much for all of your help. I definitely appreciate your advice on armament. I will be taking a look at the storefronts this evening. :twisted:

The US spends 28% of its budget on defense? :shock: I should think not...but please, correct me. I don't know the figures exactly, 28% is appalling. I would have thought less than 15%.

National Commonwealth, Zoogiedom would like to contribute $10bn to your nation to aid in arms purchasing. May you spend it well :P.

First off, I'd set my defense budget at less than 15%. Yougner nations tend to overdo it a bit, trying to stretch it as much as possible (I used to, although I never could spend it all) until they gain in population and can't figure out what to do with that much money.

A good deal of the defense budget, say, 40% (I'm not an expert, it's just a tentative suggestion) should be spent on the paychecks, maintainance, recruiting (or in your case, conscripting), base construction, infrastructure, and training of the military.

It's also wise to produce your own basic infantry materials you'll be needing a heck of a lot of. For instance, assault rifles. I believe that the M-16A2 is the established standard (RL) for assault rifles, and they're $750 apiece, roughly speaking. These you should make domestically, at the very least. Trucks, jeeps, Humvees, SAMs, engineering equipment, armor, guns...all of these you should consider making yourself at the moment. So supposing your defense budget was $10bn; after all that, you'd probably look to spend 1-3bn on foreign purchases. Don't purchase too much, you won't need to. Not many nations will look to attack you anyways for now, and they'll never attack you without your consent to roleplay. If you don't wish to roleplay, it's fine (I think...anyone able to correct me here?)

Since you're compulsory for military, I suppose you could stretch your military numbers to perhaps 6 or 7% of your population, active and reserve.

Crookfur's really good at explaining, so you should probably listen to him and go by what he says if it conflicts with what I say.

Build up your army first...then add more and more helicopters to it, because they tend to be expensive; and then move on to an air force. Only when you've become fairly rich should you go for a navy, and at first, just light frigates. I'd suggest Doujin's (http://geocities.com/doujincorp) LCS littoral combat light frigate at $100 million apiece for starters after you reach a certain point. Other naval ships are quite expensive, and you should definitely wait til you've got around a $40bn or more defense budget before carriers.

As for nuclear weapons, the rule of thumb is you have to have a population of 100mil or be one month old. Forget which one, exactly, or if they're interchangeable. My advice is, don't. I started my own nuclear program back in late January, and have very low numbers. The truth is you've got to be very technologically advanced to be able to produce nuclear weapons, and on top of that, you've got to have a lot of money to spare. They're insane to maintain. You really should hold back a while before constructing them.

Since I unfortunately don't make army material (yet), the following threads can only be of reference.

The ZaS-27 (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=140675&highlight=) is a very capable modern air superiority fighter. It's basically the equivalent in role to the F-22, but it's vastly superior...however, it's quite expensive.

The ZaS-42 (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=140087&highlight=) is a light, joint-branch strike fighter, with stealth technology and cost-affordability, particularly in export versions.

The C-71 (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131905&highlight=) is a fairly expensive and very, very large - 180 tons or so - military airlift using the highly innovative box wing design.

The C-240 (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127367&highlight=) is a medium, supersonic military airlift that also delpoys paras. It uses a variant of the box wing, the joined wing concept, itself a derivative of the blended wing concept. It also has a tanker version for midair refueling, electronic warfare platform for distracting enemy signals, and a cruise missile platform for when you feel this urge to blow the crap out of somebody but are too lazy to mobilize.

This storefront (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=140491&highlight=) is my slighty in need of repair air force ordinance storefront, because combat aircraft have to be armed with something to be useful.

Jagand a Shipyards (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142064&highlight=) is my makeshift naval storefront of my naval material currently being phased out in favor of original designs. They're all basically retooled real-life material.

In truth, however, you shouldn't import a lot from anyone. The more you make on your own, the better for your economy and private industry.

Hope I could help. If you need me, I'm only a telegram away...and if you wish to join a region, you are most welcome to join mine.

Whoever said the US spends 28% on the military doesn't know what they're talking about. The US' 2004 military budget was $379 billion out of $2.36 trillion, or 16%. And that's including a $48 billion increase for expenditures involved with Persian Gulf 2. The peace time figure is much lower.

Also, to same person, GDP has nothing to do with your national budget. GDP is the total value of goods produced in your nation of the course of a year. Your budget is based on the total revenue the government takes in through taxes, loans, investments, selling bonds, etc.

10% of your national budget is rule of thumb maximum for military.

If trying to be realistic, you can expect to spend 55-70% of your military budget on salaries, maintenance, recruiting, training, etc.

Rule of thumb for conscription is 1-2% in peace time, 3-5% in war time. Nations with compulsory military service can stretch that a bit.

Out of your total military, 70-80% of them will need to be support personnel.

The US spends 28% of its budget on defense? :shock: I should think not...but please, correct me. I don't know the figures exactly, 28% is appalling. I would have thought less than 15%.

That figure is accurate, if you don't count Social Security as part of the regular federal budget.


A word to the wise on those using compulsory military service; your soldiers will not perform as well as a professional military.

edit: Matteo, chill out.

Also, to same person, GDP has nothing to do with your national budget. GDP is the total value of goods produced in your nation of the course of a year. Your budget is based on the total revenue the government takes in through taxes, loans, investments, selling bonds, etc. Your annual budget will be a function of your GDP (which actually tallies the value of all economic activity, not just the production of goods). Nations with a larger GDP can have larger budgets (depending on how they tax).

I was merely speculating what the previous poster might have been referring to when he/she said that anything more than 10% could paralyze your enconomy.

The US spends 28% of its budget on defense? :shock: I should think not...but please, correct me. I don't know the figures exactly, 28% is appalling. I would have thought less than 15%.

That figure is accurate, if you don't count Social Security as part of the regular federal budget.


A word to the wise on those using compulsory military service; your soldiers will not perform as well as a professional military.

Uh, why wouldn't you count Social Security? It's just like any other Federal program. At this point, the money doesn't even go back to society. Basically all Social Security Tax collected now goes toward other stuff; one of the reasons why Social Security won't exist for those of us in our teens at this moment.

The budget approved by Congress this year was totaled at $2.36 trillion. Of that, $378 billion was spent on the military. 16%. Period. And that's a war time expenditure.

OOC: A new nation may spend more to get a jump start in military, I say anything 25% and under is OK

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=144095
I sell ships and subs here. I will give you 10% off and hope you like what you see

If you're an island nation then the following advice might work for you as a medium-term goal (sorry, copied and pasted from a previous TM...not much time to rewrite):

If you plan on only fielding a defensive force then you won't need more than 1-3 medium/light aircraft carriers (med/light is in reference to the number of aircraft...about 20-50). Otherwise, land-based aircraft can more effectively run many missions. The main issue for security will be the use of cheap, small patrol boats to guard against small-unit landings and to combat units that may try to land on your shores via landing craft. Several dozen small, medium/heavy armed (up to 1, 30mm cannon or a heavy mortar (ie, 120mm turret-mounted mortar...I am coming out with one of these soon)) patrol craft (crew of 2-5 and passenger capacity of 8-12...a boarding party or small landing/strike special forces group).

For larger threats, you'll want a number of small, relatively cheap missile boats (price <400M/unit, called Corvettes or Missile boats). These can be used against larger landing craft and present a serious threat to larger, harder to maneuver capitol ships. Missile boats are, in all honesty, not terribly effective on their own, but they can provide serious striking power for light missions against similar craft or nearby enemy targets and their missiles can threaten larger, somewhat vulnerable ships. Corvettes can often act as command ships for flotillas that involve numerous patrol boats and missile boats...some have the ability to land and tender a single helicopter (although some missile boat variants can also land helicopters, they tend to be incapable of long-term maintenance and protected storage).

Destroyers and Frigates (Medium/Small Capitol ships) are good defensive platforms. Destroyers tend to be multi-use (also known as "Full Spectrum" or something like that) and have Anti-Air (AA), Anti-Ship (ASW), and Anti-Submarine (ASuW) capabilities. They are nice ships, not too large, but with the ability (normally) to carry 1-2 helicopters that can be fully maintained aboard the vessel. Frigates are fairly much dedicated ASuW ships, but they've recently become so similar to destroyers in some navies that the difference is only in title...as Frigates have recently gained some great power in the same ranges of targets as Destroyers.

Next above Destroyers and Frigates are Cruisers. Cruisers tend to be the main direct-strike ships in Carrier Battle Groups (CBGs)...in navies without battleships (BBs). US variants carry over 120 vertically-launched missiles (most are Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs))...they tend to be slighly more heavily armed than Destroyers, but the main difference is just an expanded capacity as there are basically no Cruiser weapons that can't be mounted on a Destroyer.

Above the Cruisers are battleships and carriers. These vessels are expensive to build/buy and expensive to maintain. For their duties, however, they are without parallel. Carriers bear dozens of strike fighters and bombers next to enemy territory and battleships establish heavy, protected artillery batteries off-shore that can strike at, and destoy, almost any enemy targets. If you are an island nation among island nations, it might be more beneficial to have 4 BBs and 2 aircraft carriers than to have 6 aircraft carriers (which can be vulnerable to enemy fire and won't work well in confined island areas).

Uh, why wouldn't you count Social Security? It's just like any other Federal program. I would like to point out that I clearly indicated in my original post that I was excluding SS. Social security is special tax that isn't related to running the government, 28% of all funds that are not ear-marked for disbursement directly to citizens is set aside for the military. That is a peacetime figure that isn't including the special funding for Iraq.

Basically all Social Security Tax collected now goes toward other stuff; one of the reasons why Social Security won't exist for those of us in our teens at this moment.

That isn't accurate. Are there no elderly people collecting SS? Are there no disabled collecting SS? The federal government is entitled to borrow money from the Social Security fund (and is required to pay it back, with interest).

Uh, why wouldn't you count Social Security? It's just like any other Federal program. I would like to point out that I clearly indicated in my original post that I was excluding SS. Social security is special tax that isn't related to running the government, 28% of all funds that are not ear-marked for disbursement directly to citizens is set aside for the military. That is a peacetime figure that isn't including the special funding for Iraq.

Basically all Social Security Tax collected now goes toward other stuff; one of the reasons why Social Security won't exist for those of us in our teens at this moment.

That isn't accurate. Are there no elderly people collecting SS? Are there no disabled collecting SS? The federal government is entitled to borrow money from the Social Security fund (and is required to pay it back, with interest).

http://www.zippyimages.com/files/15803/kac_banner1_anim.gif (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=62566)

First off, The National Commonwealth Republic would like to extend its utmost appreciation and thanks to the generous leadership of Zoogiedom for its contribution. Our Nation looks up to you and wishes you continued proseprity. We would also like to thank the IDF Federation for its offer to facilitate the means by which the National Commonwealth Armed Forces can aquire naval weaponry. We plan to do business with you and our preliminary offer will be placed within your storefront.

The NCR would also like to hail all nations and armament suppliers who have set out to assist my nation, among others, with this information. :D

Uh, why wouldn't you count Social Security? It's just like any other Federal program. I would like to point out that I clearly indicated in my original post that I was excluding SS. Social security is special tax that isn't related to running the government, 28% of all funds that are not ear-marked for disbursement directly to citizens is set aside for the military. That is a peacetime figure that isn't including the special funding for Iraq.

Basically all Social Security Tax collected now goes toward other stuff; one of the reasons why Social Security won't exist for those of us in our teens at this moment.

That isn't accurate. Are there no elderly people collecting SS? Are there no disabled collecting SS? The federal government is entitled to borrow money from the Social Security fund (and is required to pay it back, with interest).

Sorry if this is a bit of hijacking, just wanted to make a response.

First, off, even with the $525 billion social security budget withdrawn, the US still only spent 20% of its budget on the military in 2004, and that's including war time costs of $48 billion. There's a big difference between 20% and 28%.

No offense, but you're a bit naive regarding social security. Ask any economist, retirement planner, investment planner, personal accountant, the majority of government officials, or otherwise, and they'll tell you Social Security is and has been dwindling. The professionals and former professionals in these fields that I've talked to in my business and personal finances classes all hold this opinion. They'll also tell you that without a complete overhaul of the SS system within the near future, SS will be entirely gone within 40 or 50 years. The age required to claim social security has been steadily rising for the last 20 years; if you're currently in your 40s or 50s, you can't claim SS until age 67. If you're currently a teenager, the projected age for you is age 77, if it exists at all. SS is being drained for government use and by the baby boomer generation faster than it is being replaced; eventually, it will be completely gone. The government cannot afford to replace the amounts it takes out any more, let alone with interest. Anyone just entering the working world now that pays social security is essentially paying a second income tax with a misleading name.

And Nat'l Commonwealth, GM would like to match Zoogie's contribution of $10 billion in response to your efforts to make NS a better, n00b free place. :D

National Commonwealth thanks Great Mateo, as well. We appreciate your munificent investment in our nation.

Check out the AIS military storefront if you get a chance. We've got some nice items at good prices as well as a couple of packages.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136996

We've also begun working on our civilian storefront and will be adding alot more shortly.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143441

First, off, even with the $525 billion social security budget withdrawn, the US still only spent 20% of its budget on the military in 2004, and that's including war time costs of $48 billion. There's a big difference between 20% and 28%. I believe you forgot to include the 250 billion per year for medicare. (While nominally a part of the SS system, it runs it own seperate budget, the combined expenditures for the two programs is the sum of 535 billion and 250 billion.


No offense, but you're a bit naive regarding social security. Ask any economist, retirement planner, investment planner, personal accountant, the majority of government officials, or otherwise, and they'll tell you Social Security is and has been dwindling. The professionals and former professionals in these fields that I've talked to in my business and personal finances classes all hold this opinion. They'll also tell you that without a complete overhaul of the SS system within the near future, SS will be entirely gone within 40 or 50 years. The age required to claim social security has been steadily rising for the last 20 years; if you're currently in your 40s or 50s, you can't claim SS until age 67. If you're currently a teenager, the projected age for you is age 77, if it exists at all. SS is being drained for government use and by the baby boomer generation faster than it is being replaced; eventually, it will be completely gone. The government cannot afford to replace the amounts it takes out any more, let alone with interest. Anyone just entering the working world now that pays social security is essentially paying a second income tax with a misleading name.

My "that isn't accurate comment" wasn't related to your statements about the future solvency of the SS system, but rather that no money is disbursed to citizens. I would be interested in continueing this discussion with you, although its rather uncooth to disrupt this thread. ;)