Movie Horror In The East Using The CIA World Factbook ✓ Solved

Movie Horror In The Eastusing The Cia World Factbook Htt

Movie Horror In The East Using the CIA World Factbook (please research the levels of military and economic power of three great powers and three small countries. You should look up relevant data on military spending, the size of the military, GDP and GDP per capita, and other factors. Please answer and discuss the following questions. 1. Please list the data for the 6 countries you choose. 2. When comparing your findings, what patterns emerge? 3. How would you explain these patterns (try to think of historical, political, geopolitical, ideological, social, and economic explanations)? 4. What are the implications of your findings for international relations?

This paper analyzes the military and economic capacities of three great powers and three small countries using data from the CIA World Factbook. The three great powers selected are the United States, China, and Russia, while the three small countries are Luxembourg, Bhutan, and Fiji. The objective is to compare their military expenditures, military sizes, GDP, and GDP per capita, identify emerging patterns, interpret these patterns through historical, political, and economic lenses, and discuss their implications for international relations.

1. Data for the Six Countries

United States: As the world's leading military and economic power, the United States has a military expenditure of approximately $732 billion (2023), with an active military personnel count of about 1.3 million. Its GDP stands around $25.5 trillion, with a GDP per capita of roughly $77,000.

China: China’s military spending is approximately $228 billion, with an active military force of around 2 million personnel. Its GDP is approximately $17.7 trillion, with a GDP per capita of about $12,500.

Russia: Russia expends about $86 billion on its military, maintaining roughly 1 million active personnel. Its GDP totals approximately $1.8 trillion, and its GDP per capita is roughly $12,000.

Luxembourg: This small yet wealthy country spends about $812 million on its military, with around 3000 personnel. Its GDP is approximately $76 billion, with a GDP per capita near $119,000.

Bhutan: Bhutan’s military expenditure is minimal, around $31 million, with a military force estimated at about 7,000 personnel. Its GDP is approximately $2.5 billion, with a GDP per capita of about $3,400.

Fiji: Fiji allocates roughly $10 million to military spending, with a military size of about 2,000 personnel. Its GDP sits at around $5 billion, and its GDP per capita is approximately $4,600.

2. Patterns Emerging from the Data

Several key patterns emerge when comparing these countries’ military and economic metrics. First, there is a stark disparity between the great powers and small countries; the former command significantly larger military budgets, personnel, and economic outputs. The United States leads markedly across all categories, followed by China and Russia, which, despite their differences, have substantially higher military and economic figures than Luxembourg, Bhutan, and Fiji.

Secondly, there is a positive correlation between economic strength and military capability among the great powers; the United States, as the richest, maintains the largest military expenditure and personnel. Conversely, the smaller countries’ military spending and sizes are modest relative to their economies, signifying their limited military roles on the global stage.

Thirdly, a pattern of wealth distribution is evident, with small countries like Luxembourg displaying high GDP per capita, indicating high living standards despite their limited military capacities. Conversely, nations like Bhutan and Fiji have low GDP per capita, reflecting their developing status.

3. Explanations for These Patterns

These patterns can be explained through various historical, political, and economic factors. The great powers—particularly the U.S., China, and Russia—have historically invested heavily in military capabilities to secure geopolitical dominance, economic interests, and security. For instance, the U.S. has established a global military presence since World War II, shaping its large defense budget and extensive military force (Kennedy, 2004). Similarly, China’s rise as a global superpower is backed by a strategic emphasis on military modernization and territorial integrity (Medeiros & Caracappa, 2021).

Russia’s military strength reflects its historical desire to assert influence in its near abroad and maintain global strategic relevance, particularly after the Cold War (Trenin, 2017). Conversely, small countries like Luxembourg benefit from their economic stability, high technology sectors, and neutrality or limited military needs, which allow for high GDP per capita without expanding military forces (Schlundt, 2020).

The socio-economic status of countries influences their military spending; wealthier nations prioritize extensive military capabilities, while developing countries invest less due to limited resources, lower tax bases, and different security priorities. Additionally, the geopolitical environment affects military investments, as great powers seek to assert influence and deter threats, while small nations focus on economic stability and regional participation (Mearsheimer, 2014).

4. Implications for International Relations

The disparities highlighted by the data underscore the global power hierarchy and influence international relations dramatically. The dominance of the United States, China, and Russia in military and economic terms underscores their ability to project power globally and shape international norms and policies. These powers’ military capabilities serve both as tools of deterrence and instruments of influence, enabling them to secure strategic interests worldwide (Ikenberry, 2018).

Meanwhile, small countries, despite their limited military capabilities, often leverage economic strength or neutrality to maintain stability and sovereignty. The disparity indicates potential regional security concerns, where less powerful states might seek alliances or adopt strategic neutrality to avoid being drawn into conflicts involving great powers (Smith, 2019).

The concentration of military power and economic resources in a few countries amplifies global inequalities and can contribute to power struggles, tensions, and conflict if not managed through diplomacy. Understanding this distribution is crucial for policymakers aiming to foster stability, reduce tensions, and promote equitable international cooperation (Jentleson, 2020).

Overall, the patterns reveal a world where military dominance correlates with economic resources, impacting global geopolitics. Countries must navigate these disparities through diplomacy, international organizations, and strategic alliances to ensure peace and stability in an increasingly interconnected world.

References

• Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton University Press.
• Jentleson, B. W. (2020). American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Kennedy, P. (2004). The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. Random House.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Medeiros, E., & Caracappa, S. (2021). China’s Military Modernization: Opportunities and Limitations. RAND Corporation.
• Schlundt, J. (2020). The Economy of Luxembourg: An Analysis of Small State Success. Small States & Security Series.
• Smith, R. (2019). Small States in the International System: The Challenges and Opportunities of Neutrality. Routledge.
• Trenin, D. (2017). Russia and the Future of International Politics. Polity Press.