The US Defence Budget is now greater than that of the next 25 countries put together!

[Eli]

Saudi Arabia - 14.5%?

[DinoDoc]

They have more enemies than just you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dino... they are Israelis, they think the whole world revolves around then .

[Lefty Scaevola]

"The US Defence Budget is now greater than that of the next 25 countries put together!"

What a bunch of weenies. We should punish those wothless slackers.

[Az]

DD:

[Dauphin]

In terms of assessing cost and the affordability to a country using GDP is fine, but in terms of assessing need it is a strange yardstick IMO.

Surely defence spending should not be proportional to the size of the economy, but to the level of perceived threat. Given the US is by far and away the largest country (economically) with no above the norm military threats, surely its cost should be the smallest as a %age?


I would expect there to a be a fairly fixed cost for defence, not a variable one dependent on the size of your economy.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
In terms of assessing cost and the affordability to a country using GDP is fine, but in terms of assessing need it is a strange yardstick IMO.

Surely defence spending should not be proportional to the size of the economy, but to the level of perceived threat. Given the US is by far and away the largest country (economically) with no above the norm military threats, surely its cost should be the smallest as a %age?


I would expect there to a be a fairly fixed cost for defence, not a variable one dependent on the size of your economy.

That's probably closer to a good assessment of military spending. I would also throw in there some relative valuation of those countries perceived as threats. It's not that the US economy can't afford the level of defense spending it has, it's just that you could cut in half and there still wouldn't be another country close to it in military power. Plus, while adding another 1% or so of GDP to military spending isn't going to bankrupt the country, it translates to tens of billions of dollars. Think about where that money could be better spent. Take your pick from whichever political or social view you hold - healthcare, education, airport/port/rail security, foreign aid, intelligence, INS, postal services, tax cuts, etc.

[chequita guevara]

It's called military Keynesianism. It's how we keep our economy afloat. The real purpose of the US military buget is to keep money circulating and create a demand for heavy industry and high tech. It's why we lead the world in technology and production.

It also keeps the rest of you in check.

[DanS]

SD and Kontiki: Nah, that's not the way that many Americans view it. Post WWI and WWII, we disarmed very quickly. We saved a lot of money, but our weakness encouraged potential adversaries to try to outspend us.

This is all about potential adversaries, not actual adversaries--a 20 to 30 year game. We have to have a number that makes the Chinese think that it's too expensive to get into an arms race with us.

This spending is, for lack of a better term, "good" for the world.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Post WWI and WWII, we disarmed very quickly. We saved a lot of money, but our weakness encouraged potential adversaries to try to outspend us.

And we went right back into a depression as soon as defense spending contracted. WWII pulled us out of the depression, and Korea pulled us out of the post-war depression. We've never left wartime spending since the Korean war. It would kill the economy.

[DanS]

"We've never left wartime spending since the Korean war."

I think you mean, the Soviets never left wartime spending. 3%-4% of GDP is nowhere near wartime spending.

The post WWII contraction was a recession. Saying it was a depression is an extreme exageration.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DanS
We have to have a number that makes the Chinese think that it's too expensive to get into an arms race with us.

This spending is, for lack of a better term, "good" for the world.

Is it the number that needs to look big, or the military capability. If it is the former, spending $50billion on NASA (as part of the defence budget) would be a good avenue to explore.

(When did 'NASA' get taken out of the military budget - it used to be part of the AirForce if I remember correctly)

It's called military Keynesianism. It's how we keep our economy afloat. The real purpose of the US military buget is to keep money circulating and create a demand for heavy industry and high tech. It's why we lead the world in technology and production.

No contradiction with NASA spending there either.

I don't like the Keynesianism argument, not because I don't believe its true, but because the government could spend the money on anything to fulfil that task. Military use is just something that is more easily justified to patriotic taxpayers.

[DanS]

"Is it the number that needs to look big, or the military capability."

Both. We think that China could surpass us economically in about 10-30 years. We would like them to reduce their spending as a percentage of GDP over that time. The best way to do that is to make the number big and make it impossible to surpass us without going to a war footing.

"If it is the former, spending $50billion on NASA (as part of the defence budget) would be a good avenue to explore."

We spend about $35-$40 billion in space as is. $15B NASA. $15-20B Intel. V. roughly $5B miscellaneous space air force (the misc. space air force number could be off, as I don't have a good idea of that number--it's black, of course, and Rummy is a space-head).

[connorkimbro]

The amount of the defense budget really doesn't matter for ****. What percent the defense budget is of the overall GDP is what OUGHT to be compared.

And does anyone know what kind of results you get from that calculation? I'll give ya a hint, the US is nowhere NEAR the top.

[Dauphin]

The above post is why people should read threads before they post.