US Defense Spending

Does anyone here think the US needs to spend lots MORE on defense? I'm interested in the reasoning behind that position if you'd like to share.


I just heard in some radio commentary in passing that the Romney campaign was proposing an increas of defense spending to 4% of GDP. What struck me about that was, of course, surprise that this is on the agenda at all. But even more so was to peg it like that to GDP. Shouldn't defense spending be based on likely threat scenarios and specific national defense needs? How does it make sense to say we should spend said amount independant of needs?

Is this really just about industry subsidy? Sort of like "feed the beast" to keep jobs and key industries going?

Erm, we spend more than 4% of GDP on our military...

By linking it to GDP you have the advantage of linking it to affordability.

Defence needs are almost infinite since you're not just fighting today's battles but preparing for (and trying to avoid) tomorrows. The US could double its defence budget tomorrow and the Pentagon would find a way of spending it - and there'd probably be less soldier deaths in the next conflict as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Erm, we spend more than 4% of GDP on our military...

---

No, we don't.

(edit: oh, fine, I'll explain. Romney refers to the DoD budget ex-OCOs. That's running at something like 3.3% IIRC. It normally runs between 3-3.5% in the post Cold War era.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

No, we don't.

(edit: oh, fine, I'll explain. Romney refers to the DoD budget ex-OCOs. That's running at something like 3.3% IIRC. It normally runs between 3-3.5% in the post Cold War era.)

---

That's not saying much seeing that we're almost always fighting a war/"peacekeeping/bombing somewhere.

First, the US should prioritize its spending better. Funnel more money into intelligence and cyber security, or beefing up security at embassies in volatile areas, instead of building aircraft carriers or multi-million dollar jet planes. Then we can cut defense spending by quite a bit. (see Simpson-Bowles proposals)

Our military/defense budget is already over-sized, compared to the rest of the world. Europe is slashing their defense spending too, and it's unrealistic to expect the US to take up the slack. We have deficits to tackle, too.

The US makes up over 50% of global military spending, but we're less than 5% of the global population. We spend more than the next 27 nations combined. It's time we stop acting like the world's police force.

$1 of military spending in America is not the same as $1 of military spending in, say, North Korea.

I find it curious how the people who want to fund massive jobs (EG Amtrak) are also the people who want to cut the military. You'd think they would support the military simply because it provides so many jobs coupled with shiny guns to protect against those Canadians.

I'm not specifically addressing that to you, Chacha. I was just thinking about this opinion piece I read today:

Quote:

---

A cheeseburger that sells for $9.50 in an Amtrak café car costs the railroad $16.15.

So an average hot-dog vendor from the street outside Penn Station could lease an Amtrak café car, turn a profit for himself and the railroad, and reduce food prices for passengers. Is there even a slight chance that such a thing could happen? Not according to what one heard at the hearing. “Why are some members of Congress promoting the elimination of good middle-class jobs with decent pay and benefits?” demanded Dwayne Bateman, vice general chairman of the union that represents train service workers. Nick Rahall, the ranking Democrat on the House’s Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, agreed. “It’s a whopper of an idea, trading good-paying jobs for cheaper hamburgers,” Rahall said.

American taxpayers owe Bateman and Rahall a vote of thanks for shedding light on the perverse incentives that make Amtrak such a mixed experience. For passengers, a café car means cheeseburgers. For café-car employees—and many legislators—it means pork. For passengers, late trains mean time lost. For train crews, they mean overtime gained. Bottom line: Amtrak is a jobs program on wheels.

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_4_snd-amtrak.html

---

*****

I think we need a beefier defense posture, especially with our navy. Navies are capital intensive, take time to build and help project power far beyond our borders (and we need beefing-up in the Pacific to protect our interests there). But spending has gotten totally screwy with this crazy defense procurement process.

I'd personally love to see more defense output with the same/slightly less amount of money. But I see no reason to take the European route and let our entitlement spending crowd-out defense spending. That seems like an invitation to a much more dangerous world.

The more the US spends on military, the less likely the military is needed. If America cut its spending to Korean levels it would not make the world a safer place.

That claim isn't entirely possible to disprove, but the supporters of deterrence have never been able to make a convincing case for the position. Very few buy it today.

I think history makes the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The more the US spends on military, the less likely the military is needed.

---

This is true, but it's also more likely to be used in wars of choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

This is true, but it's also more likely to be used in wars of choice.

---

True.

Well, I think at this point we can be pretty confident that the US won't be engaging in any wars of choice for at least 10-15 years. We've scratched that itch for now.

Iran?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I think history makes the case.

---

I think a selective reading of "history" is slightly less reliable than a large N quantitative study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Iran?

---

That will be a War of God. Or something. And everyone's gonna get dragged into it.

Or perhaps a War on God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Well, I think at this point we can be pretty confident that the US won't be engaging in any wars of choice for at least 10-15 years. We've scratched that itch for now.

---

I don't have your confidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Iran?

---

We're certainly not going to occupy them. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The more the US spends on military, the less likely the military is needed. If America cut its spending to Korean levels it would not make the world a safer place.

---

Conversely, the more the US spends on military....the less other first world nations will spend. Isn't the UK cutting their "defense" budget by 10% or more? Do you really expect the US to take up that slack? Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

That claim isn't entirely possible to disprove, but the supporters of deterrence have never been able to make a convincing case for the position. Very few buy it today. I do have a manuscript out showing that higher military spending = higher chance of war, even controlling for statistical problems inherent in such a relationship. :noob:

---

Do share. It'd be interesting if you also compared/contrasted/correlated DoD spending and 'private' defense contractors (Lockheed Martin et al) with political spending by those same groups (PACs and superPACs) and their candidates. How far can you run it away from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Well, I think at this point we can be pretty confident that the US won't be engaging in any wars of choice for at least 10-15 years. We've scratched that itch for now.

---

Yeah, you must be high. Romney and his advisors are practically itching for another "war of choice". It's part of their platform of strength through military....and shaping world events.

The UK is trying to solve its budget deficit problem. Wake me up when (A) the US starts to or (B) you support it doing so (even for your precious programs). :o

Is military spending as % of GDP in there too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

That's not saying much seeing that we're almost always fighting a war/"peacekeeping/bombing somewhere.

---

That's irrelevant. Chaloobi is talking about Mitt Romney's pledge to increase the core DoD budget significantly (to the tune of about $2 trillion+ over ten years), not spending on OCOs, DHS, etc. The question is whether the core DoD budget really needs to be bigger. Honestly, I'm not convinced it needs to be (though I also think that the fiscal cliff would be a disaster as well).

Dread: our navy is just fine. We have 11 supercarriers, a bunch of smaller flattops that would be considered major naval air projection in any other country (notably the two new America class amphibious assault ships), a large and very sophisticated fleet of subs and destroyers, and a new class of littoral vessels. Romney definitely agrees on the navy angle, but I think what's really needed is intelligent procurement rather than aiming for significantly more ships. I agree that would could probably boost shipbuilding some without significant input of new money, and I'm all in favor of getting the best bang for our buck (heh, literally). But I really don't see the need for core DoD spending to hit a 20-year high when there's so much fat to trim.

Fair enough. I haven't heard the specific claim.

Don't forget that VA and FL are political swing states. VA is the DC corridor, with employment tied directly to DoD and military expenditures. FL is the 'space coast', with employment tied to NASA, as well as military Navy ports. Romney's campaign is trying to win both states, by promising more military spending.

Quote:

---

I find it curious how the people who want to fund massive jobs (EG Amtrak) are also the people who want to cut the military.

---

The reverse is equally often true.

At least Amtrak provides services that citizens can use for our own benefits; traveling within our own country, for work or pleasure. The same can't be said for military spending that's increasingly other-nation-building, at the expense of our own nation-building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Fair enough. I haven't heard the specific claim.

---

It's a pretty major component of his defense strategy. From his website:

Quote:

---

This will not be a cost-free process. We cannot rebuild our military strength without paying for it. Mitt Romney will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts and return to the budget baseline established by Secretary Robert Gates in 2010, with the goal of setting core defense spending—meaning funds devoted to the fundamental military components of personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, and research and development—at a floor of 4 percent of GDP.

---

lol, "rebuild our military stength" - I'm fairly sure Americans live in some kind of fantasy world with regard to their military and have no idea how overwhelmingly powerful it is compared to everyone else, e.g. the Arleigh Burke is the most powerful all round class of destroyer in the world and also the most numerous by an order of magnitude yet if you cut their numbers by, say, 25% I'm sure some would react as if even now Chinese hordes could force their way across the pacific and land in Seattle.