Not Algerian, but they have historically been a bit of a punching bag to all their neighbors, Morocco, Libya, France, and Spain have all not been particularly friendly. Then more recently there have been more rebellions in Libya and Morocco with Islamic Terrorists in Mali. Think they are just not in a particularly stable area with few friends to rely on.

They did indeed have soviet support . They also knew their way around the jungle .

Per capita or at least normalize by gdp ffs

I get it. The middle east really likes war.

That Mercator projection though.

That doesnt make any sense. And I made compliments to your people. The only agressor around these parts ar the US itsef my friend...

Yeah, but the emus were propped up by Mussolini, who had an interest in a fascist flightless bird state in the Pacific.

Ireland is linked to the uk price. Uk has little to no gas storage and has a large reliance on gas.

There is a twist.... Military Expenditure contributes to GDP.

​

I know, weird, not the way I'd do it... but economists aren't ordinary people.

What about Algeria?

[removed]

Would've been so much better if you didn't use a linear scale for the colour mapping. The image itself barely conveys any useful information other than the fact the US and China lead. Right now it looks like the UK spends roughly the same on their military as Panama or Kosovo.

Yup, AWH provides extremely high quality drinking water. And unlike other water treatment methods, there is no waste stream! It's especially suitable for remote arid regions. The amounts of water removed would be negligible compared to atmospheric flows, but for context, removing water should weaken storms. More info about the work here: https://engineering.purdue.edu/ME/News/2022/atmospheric-water-harvesting-can-we-get-water-out-of-thin-air

[deleted]

When life gives you Yemen, you give Yemen aid.

Yes. Cuz it’s about what world peace costs, and the US is the only country wealthy enough to be able to guarantee this.

[removed]

Well, it's their budget. Nato is a US project, they were able to increase their sphere of influence due to it. Why would these smaller countries do more than they can get away with?

They can spend extra money on what they care about. Sound like a pretty smart and developed move.

We Americans spend that much on the military so the ‘shithole’ you live in can provide you with free university education and free universal healthcare. We spend that much on our military so your government doesn’t have to.

So are icelandic fishermen

>4% of the gdp though. So compared to the percent of gdp, it's a lot less than other countries.

3.3%ish. And most of the west relies on US logistics and intelligence.

Even as a European I would be happy for the US to spend less and the Europeans to build out more logistics capability. The UK is the only country with a reasonable airlift capacity. French operations in west Africa partially depend on that and the US.

Yes, and 2% is the minimum. Should "developed" countries in Europe really be hitting just the minimum (of which they're not even meeting that) every year?

Lower taxes than I pay in the US, and you get school and medical. Fuck me.

Maybe the map should should show Total Military Budget divided by Number of Countries Protected.

I've not heard of atmospheric water harvesting before! I assume this is for safe drinking water or are there further reasons for harvesting atmospheric water? How does this affect environmental conditions, specifically for things like supercell generation in storm season?