US Military Budget: Too Large?

[Fight!]

Comparison of US Military expenditures to various political entities and geographic regions; International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2008, U.S. Department of Defense.

The United State's military is iconic for the strength and wealth of the U.S. government. But with an annual expenditure of approximately 663 billion U.S. dollars, it strikes me as odd that I so seldom hear criticism of such ludicrously high spending. Assuming these numbers are correct, the US is spending 43% of the worlds entire military budget; a share that can scarcely be called justified. It's not that other nations are spending too little, for that is certainly not the case, but rather the United States is spending an unnecessarily high sum of cash. This money would be far better spent on infrastructure, but the case is so seldom brought to light.

SIPRI Yearbook Statistics [Page 10]

That concludes my brief opening statement, I would like to know all your thoughts on the matter.

[Big War Bird]

Yes. But I add that some countries are in fact spending too little and are sheltering under the US's security umbrella.

[Farnan]

Yes

Explain and justify the cuts you intend to make. Use detail, don't be vague.

Here is the budget:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget.html

[Big War Bird]

Explain and justify the cuts you intend to make. Use detail, don't be vague.

Here is the budget:

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbu...rview_Book.pdf

Well to start with I would begin with a letter to all heads states of friendly nations. The substance of which would read something like the rescript of Honorius. As other countries that lived under the US umbrella emerge to take possession of their responsiblities as governments the US can cut down significantly its overseas deployments and reduce its size in virtually every way. Does the US needs thousands of troops in a South Korea more than capable of handling North Korea? Same goes for Japan, and Germany, and Saudi Arabia. Even in space the US will not need to deploy so many satellites when friendly countries are operating a greater portion, In short the US will not need to be patrolling the oceans and air spaces of the world when friendly countries militaries are fully capable of securing their own freedom of the seas and defending their own airspace.

I readily admit there is no immediate solution to the US's security budget. But the reality is that given all of the other demands upon the budget the military forces cannot be indefinitely sustained.

[Captain Jin]

Well to start with I would begin with a letter to all heads states of friendly nations. The substance of which would read something like the rescript of Honorius. As other countries that lived under the US umbrella emerge to take possession of their responsiblities as governments the US can cut down significantly its overseas deployments. Does the US needs thousandsa of troops in a South Korea more than capable of handling North Korea. Same goes for Japan, and Germany, and Saudi Arabia. In short the US will not need to be patrolling the oceans and air spaces of the world when friendly countries militaries are fully capable of securing their own freedom of the seas and defending their own airspace.

I readily admit there is no immediate solution to the US's security budget. But the reality is that given all of the other demands upon the budget the military forces cannot be indefinitely sustained.

That negates the fact that where we have troops is also to protect our own interests abroad.

You won't ever see the American Navy stop doing what it's doing. If there's one thing the world benefits from it's the US Navy's hard work all over the world.

[Last Roman]

That negates the fact that where we have troops is also to protect our own interests abroad.

I'm of the mind that the US really needs to reassess its interests.

[Fight!]

Explain and justify the cuts you intend to make. Use detail, don't be vague.

Here is the budget:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget.html

An impossibly ridiculous request, but it sounds interesting. I'll get on it after I finish up my spreadsheet for the Alliance Gateway

[Saturn]

Yes. But I add that some countries are in fact spending too little and are sheltering under the US's security umbrella.

This is why some nations can afford extravagant social welfare programs.

[Salem1]

Yes. But I add that some countries are in fact spending too little and are sheltering under the US's security umbrella.

Really? Go on, explain this to me. I'm genuinely curious what you're founding this misinformed opinion on.

the population of Europe and the US is a close match

You'd define 300 vs 600 million, which leaves out another 231 million people due to geographical restrictions on Russia and such, as a close match?

[Poach]

You'd define 300 vs 600 million, which leaves out another 231 million people due to geographical restrictions on Russia and such, as a close match?

You're right, EU population is just over 500 million. I do not know why I thought it was 300 million. My mistake, I apologise.

This, however, merely reinforces my point.

[Salem1]

You're right, EU population is just over 500 million. I do not know why I thought it was 300 million. My mistake, I apologise.

This, however, merely reinforces my point.

I know I'm arguing over details now but I just want to leave you with the right picture here, I think you're better off defining the European population as either 600 million or 831 million, as the EU is a political entity and I personally believe it to be short-sighted to discount the other nations just because they aren't part of the EU.

Still looking for an American to define for me how their ridiculous defense spending makes my life over in Stockholm so much safer and enables my country to have such a low defense spending. Maybe you will be better at this than the laughable attempts to discredit our politics in favour of yours.

[hellheaven1987]

Still looking for an American to define for me how their ridiculous defense spending makes my life over in Stockholm so much safer and enables my country to have such a low defense spending. Maybe you will be better at this than the laughable attempts to discredit our politics in favour of yours.

I doubt Sweden can hold itself, without US help, if Russia decide to attack it.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Still looking for an American to define for me how their ridiculous defense spending makes my life over in Stockholm so much safer and enables my country to have such a low defense spending. Maybe you will be better at this than the laughable attempts to discredit our politics in favour of yours.

A very excellent point. Sweden is a non aligned nation, with a very good military, and extensive Social programs.

[Big War Bird]

Really? Go on, explain this to me. I'm genuinely curious what you're founding this misinformed opinion on.

Would you agree that say, Denmark, lacking any significant capacity to project power into, say, the Indian Ocean, benefits from having an ally capable of doing so? I think you will agree. And if that ally were to make it clear it was going to reduce its ability to project power that would cause Denmark to possibly rethink its strategy of being dependant on that ally?

The fiscal irresponsibility of the US Government isn't just a military issue.

Fixed. Yes the US has a problem with a bloated welfare state as well.

Look at the rest of the world, we're all in the same situation, even countries with no military at all.

Bloated welfare states as far as the eye can see, true.

[Caelius]

Couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread so i'm just going to post.

In response to the OP:

No.

The US Military's budget isn't too large.

Perhaps too large for some of America's rivals and enemies when they consider what they'd have to contend with, but not for the American people or the Government chartered in the US Constitution to "provide for the common defense".

As a percentage of overall GDP the amount allocated to the US Military isn't much higher than the amounts many other developed nations spend on their own.

So right off the bat this thread is largely based on a misnomer that fails to compensate for the relative size of the US economy. If the US was spending over 10% of its GDP on tanks, warships, and aircraft than perhaps it'd be worthy of notable debate.

And as it has no doubt already been pointed out, the US Military, by de facto, provides subsidized security and defense for dozens of nations around the world through its continued operations. In addition to maintaining global connectivity and overall stability through the strategic outreach of assets like the US Navy, Transportation Command, the GPS Network, and so on.

Some may be surprised to hear it, but even in the post-9/11 world the US Military hasn't really fully re-mobilized itself from its post-Cold War malaise in terms of numbers. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have been prosecuted on a "lite" footing that has helped the Pentagon give the military a much needed overhaul and workout, but not to the extent where the US is anywhere near as strategically committed as it was in a conflict like Vietnam by comparison.

In fact, the slashing of many of the US' numbered armies, fleets, and air forces since the USSR collapsed has actually spurned many in the Pentagon establishment to push for an expansion of the Armed Forces that dates back to the Bush years, and continues to be carried out under Obama. With the stress that so many deployments and op tempos have placed on the military its no wonder that a nominal return to Cold War numbers has been given broad support in both Congress and the White House.

[Salem1]

Would you agree that say, Denmark, lacking any significant capacity to project power into, say, the Indian Ocean, benefits from having an ally capable of doing so? I think you will agree. And if that ally were to make it clear it was going to reduce its ability to project power that would cause Denmark to possibly rethink its strategy of being dependant on that ally?

And why would Scandinavians care if we can project power into the Indian Ocean?

[Big War Bird]

And why would Scandinavians care if we can project power into the Indian Ocean?

Here is one reason.

DENMARK'S MERCHANT FLEET FORECAST TO GROW BY 50% IN 5 YEARS
With 300 ships currently on order, the Danish Shipowners' Association forecasts that Denmark's merchant fleet is expected to grow by 50% over the next 5 years.

Jan Fritz Hansen, deputy director of the Danish Shipowners' Association, announced at press meeting held at Kalundborg harbour Wednesday this week, that the Danish merchant fleet is expected to grow by 50% over the next 5 years. Danish shipping companies currently have 300 ships on order at shipyards worldwide, corresponding to over 5% of shipbuilding contracts worldwide.

Source

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Yes, it's insane that the US Military budget is almost half of the entire world's share.

Yes. But I add that some countries are in fact spending too little and are sheltering under the US's security umbrella.

I would tend to agree with this, to an extent. There was a recent column by Ron Paul and Barney Frank where they argued that Europe's capacity to build extensive social programs was in part allowed by US defense spending.

Now, the logic here is slightly flawed for sure. Many of Europe's miltiaries are nothing to be scoffed at, and most of the smaller countries have far superior forces than they did prior to WWII for sure (example: the Netherlands). This has more to do with qualifying for NATO membership than US defense spending, IMO. But I understand the arguement.

[Thorn777]

Yes, it's insane that the US Military budget is almost half of the entire world's share.



I would tend to agree with this, to an extent. There was a recent column by Ron Paul and Barney Frank where they argued that Europe's capacity to build extensive social programs was in part allowed by US defense spending.

Now, the logic here is slightly flawed for sure. Many of Europe's miltiaries are nothing to be scoffed at, and most of the smaller countries have far superior forces than they did prior to WWII for sure (example: the Netherlands). This has more to do with qualifying for NATO membership than US defense spending, IMO. But I understand the arguement.

Since when are Barney Frank and Ron Paul experts on this issue or even considered a legitimate source of any kind?

Only times massive US military spending was needed for Euro's was out of mere American selfinterest during ww2 and the cold-war era, the rest has nothing to do with us Euro's and our factually much more cost-efficient social programs, but is again all about American selfinterest.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Since when are Barney Frank and Ron Paul experts on this issue or even considered a legitimate source of any kind?

They aren't, I would argue. But they're still high up US executive branch members and people in DC are gonna take notice of their statements. Plus, it was unusual I thought for them to co-op on anything at all. I thought it was worth mentioning because it was on this topic.

You can read an interview from them here...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ng_106241.html

Only times massive US military spending was needed for Euro's was out of mere American selfinterest during ww2 and the cold-war era, the rest has nothing to do with us Euro's and our factually much more cost-efficient social programs, but is again all about American selfinterest

I wouldn't say that the US rebuilding Europe's militaries post-war was totally due to self-interest. The USSR was probably more of a direct threat to Europe than the US, as we saw post-war with the Soviets claiming almost all of Eastern Europe as their own.