ICAN estimates that global nuclear weapon spending in 2024 amounts to $100 billion. However, the actual worldwide expenditure on nuclear weapons is likely even higher, perhaps as high as $150 billion. This is because spending in Russia and China is likely significantly higher. 📈 Here is why. 🧵 1/ - ThreadSky

frankkuhn.bsky.social • 6 days ago

ICAN estimates that global nuclear weapon spending in 2024 amounts to $100 billion. However, the actual worldwide expenditure on nuclear weapons is likely even higher, perhaps as high as $150 billion.

This is because spending in Russia and China is likely significantly higher. 📈

Here is why. 🧵 1/

Reposted from ICAN

🗞️1/ Now live: ICAN’s new report Hidden Costs: Nuclear Weapons Spending in 2024 shows global nuclear weapons spending rose to more than 100 billion dollars in 2024, an 11% increase from the year before.

Here’s what you need to know⬇️🧵
icanw.org/hidden_costs...
#NuclearBan

Comments

frankkuhn.bsky.social•6 days ago

First of all, ICAN has done a great job trying to piece together all the available information on global nuclear weapons spending. Given the lack of transparency in many non-Western nuclear weapon states, this is no easy task. 👏 2/

frankkuhn.bsky.social•6 days ago

As ICAN explains in their methodology section, they used local currency to calculate each country's nuclear weapons expenditure. These numbers were then converted into US dollars using average market exchange rates (MERs). 💱 3/

frankkuhn.bsky.social•6 days ago

Using market exchange rates (MERs) 🏦 to convert local currency military expenditure data into US dollars is a very common practice and perfectly defensible. For example, the @sipri.org Military Expenditure Database also uses market exchange rates and there are good reasons to do so. 👇 4/

frankkuhn.bsky.social•6 days ago

Yet, the issue with market exchange rates 📈 is that they understate the real volume of spending for countries with smaller per-capita incomes like Russia or China. As @michaelkofman.bsky.social & Richard Conolly have explained in @warontherocks.bsky.social, “Russia gets more bang for the Ruble.” 5/

frankkuhn.bsky.social•6 days ago

A better way to compare spending are Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) exchange rates. The problem with that is that GDP-based PPP rates reflect civilian goods and services, so they may not be reflective of military spending PPP exchange rates. SIPRI therefore uses MERs, despite their limitations. 🏦 6/

frankkuhn.bsky.social•6 days ago

Nevertheless, I have used World bank price level ratio data to convert ICAN's numbers based on Market Exchange Rate (MER) to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). These numbers likely better reflect the differences in worldwide spending on nuclear weapons – even if they are almost certainly wrong. 🧮 7/

kampfmitkette.bsky.social•6 days ago

Is that purely the nuclear weapons or also the delivery systems and platforms?

frankkuhn.bsky.social•6 days ago

Delivery platforms as well.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply