US military spending

[bascule]

The United States' military expendatures were between $455 and $462 billion in 2004. The lower estimate comes from a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and the higher one comes from a newer NATO report.

 

Here's some interesting number crunching on these figures:

 

• US defense spending comprises 47% of the world total, and is more than the military spending of the next 32 most powerful nations combined.
  
• The next highest nation was China with $67 billion.
  
• The US is #1 in military spending per capita at $1,540/person compared to the next highest nation, Israel, at $1,451/person. However, that $1,451/person figure includes $2.16 billion of military aid money the US gave to Israel, without which Israeli military spending per capita drops to $1,107/person. This figure is still higher than the #3 highest military spender per capita, Singapore, at $1,010/person.
  
• Military spending accounted for 1/5th of the US's $2.34 trillion budget in 2004.
  

 

Does this strike anyone else as a tad excessive?

[john5746]

Yes, very excessive.

 

It is more fun to spend money with the military. To see their high tech gadgets blow targets up, etc. It makes people feel that the military is worth spending money on. Poverty and education, those are boring and seem to never improve anyway, so it is seen as wasteful.

 

In reality both can be wasteful and need to be kept in check.

[Pangloss]

Yeah it's a fascinating subject. I did a brief (and inferior) write-up on this a few months ago -- nice job on the numbers and links.

 

I think it's an awful lot, and while I've ranted quite a bit lately on how much we spend on entitlements (which is about 3x what we spend on defense), I'm a firm believer in NOT "making two wrongs a right" (so much so that as far as I'm concerned anybody here has carte blanche to nail me on it if I ever fall prey to that ridiculous trap). A mis-spent dollar is a mis-spent dollar, tanjit.

 

I may take some of the counter-point on this, for the sake of argument, in order to throw in some key talking points that sometimes get overlooked in this debate. But we have a smart bunch here so I'm sure someone will pop in with an honest defense on defense spending (if you'll pardon the pun).

 

My general position is that we could spend 2-3x what the Chinese spend, still project force and save the world from Europe's SNAFUs (just kidding!), and STILL have enough leftover to wipe out the deficit. (Well maybe not, but it's pretty darn close.)

[JPQuiceno]

I think this is why U.S.A dominates in military terms. Keep spending!

 

I LOVE THE USA!

[Pangloss]

This time it's Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave.

[Douglas]

The United States' military expendatures were between $455 and $462 billion in 2004. ?

Wouldn't it be better to present the military expendatures as a percentage of revenues ? This would make for a more objective look at whats going on when comparing with others.

[CPL.Luke]

keep in mind that the cost of living in other countries is far lower...

 

some parts of china have an average income of under 1000 dollars (western china to be exact), compare that with the US's average income of 40k and you can see why the cost of maintaining a military in china is far less.

 

also consider that the cost of manufactureing equipment is far less in other countries, China doesn't have to pay nearly as much for x military item as the US does.

 

^the two above analogies can be applied to most other countries.

[Pangloss]

I think as a percentage of tax revenue the number is going to still be relatively high compared with other countries. What might be more "normalized" may be a comparison with GDP.

[bascule]

Wouldn't it be better to present the military expendatures as a percentage of revenues ?

 

I could see military as a percentage of GDP being an interesting statistic. According to:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

 

Under Reagan, defense spending increased from 4.9 to 6.2%. (+1.3%)

Under GHWB, defense spending decreased to 4.8% (-1.4%)

Under Clinton, defense spending decreased to 3.0% (-1.8%)

Under GWB (so far), defense spending increased to 3.9% (+0.9%)

 

If we equate Bush's term length with Reagan's, then at this point defense spending under Reagan had increased to 5.9%, or +1.0%

 

DISCLAIMER: This is not an attempt to blame these presidents for the figures associated with the time periods of their terms!

 

This would make for a more objective look at whats going on when comparing with others.

 

Defense spending makes up less than 1% of the GDP of the next highest defense spender, China... we spend 4.25x as much as a percentage of GDP on defense as they do.

 

(GDP data source)

[Skye]

Well there's not much point comparing the US defence spending with China's, because the role of defence is not analogous in each state.

 

I don't think any reasonable person would think that the US needs to spend that amount in order to simply assure the security of the US. The money is spent to provide security in the broad areas that the US economy relies on, North America, Europe and North Asia. You can look at the Iraq War as an attempt to extend this to the Middle East.

[bascule]

I don't think any reasonable person would think that the US needs to spend that amount in order to simply assure the security of the US.

 

I'm sorry, I was trying to avoid a semantic conflict by using the phrase "military spending," but I see I let quite a few "defense spending"s slip through.

 

The money is spent to provide security in the broad areas that the US economy relies on, North America, Europe and North Asia. You can look at the Iraq War as an attempt to extend this to the Middle East.

 

Call this flawed logic if you wish, but the only conceivable reason I can see us spending as much on our military as the rest of the world combined is because we plan on being in a military conflict with the rest of the world combined.

 

(Yes, obviously we're in a state of war while the rest of the world is not, but I hope you get my drift)

[swansont]

China's military is much bigger than the US's. The US approach is to make up the difference in size with technology, which is expensive. I think China's approach to a conflict would be to send hordes of troops in harm's way, whereas the US sends fewer but better-equipped troops. Having the ability to carry the conflict to the enemy is also key - I don't think much of the budget is there to protect the US from Canada and Mexico. Much of the technology approach can be viewed from a logistics standpoint as well - it's better to make only one bombing run with a few planes with GPS-guided bombs than make multiple passes or a larger mission, carpet-bombing until you take the target out. Fewer people exposed, and fewer munitions to have to resupply.

 

Of course, superior technology/firepower does not always defeat numerical superiority, as George Custer could tell you.

[Phi for All]

I feel that a great deal of military spending can be curbed by unifying the military under a single command. Right now we have four hands out, vying for every dollar in the military budget. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines all have seperate structures which compete in appropriations.

 

Senator Stuart Symington tried to change this during the Kennedy administration but met with stiff resistance from SecDef Robert McNamara. I've often wondered what the 60's would have been like if JFK hadn't reneged on his promise to make Symington his VP instead of Lyndon Johnson.

 

How much less would we spend and how much more effective would our forces be if we had soldiers who knew about ships and soldiers who knew about tanks and soldiers who knew how to fly planes, and they were all United States Defenders, instead of having internal rivalries, redundant administration and lack of fiscal cohesion between Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines?

[CPL.Luke]

I would guess it would be less effective, the marines are fast attack forces, their entire system is based off of being able to rapidly project themselves anywhere in the world.

 

while the army is slower and meant to provide a long term force in any area, bascly meant to fight a war.

 

in a great many situations the air force and navy have the same idea as the marines, fast attack power. except completely different intentions. The navy provides a base of operations, the air force the ability toreach out within a few days to anyone iin the world

[Phi for All]

I would guess it would be less effective' date=' the marines are fast attack forces, their entire system is based off of being able to rapidly project themselves anywhere in the world.

 

while the army is slower and meant to provide a long term force in any area, bascly meant to fight a war.

 

in a great many situations the air force and navy have the same idea as the marines, fast attack power. except completely different intentions. The navy provides a base of operations, the air force the ability toreach out within a few days to anyone iin the world[/quote']I'm talking about a change in structure, not in philosophy. Individual training would remain, warfare groups would still be specialized. Instead of the Joint Chiefs of Staff there would be one CoS and the military would be cohesive in appropriations and expenditure. Right now there are four complete administrative staffs in WashDC that prepare virtually identical documentation asking for budget funds. It is a huge infrastructure that duplicates it's efforts in almost every area.

 

There is also a rivalry for spending between the armed forces. The Army wants a jet like the A-10 Warthog but doesn't want to buy the Air Force's plane so they have a completely new one made.

 

There is a personal rivalry betweeen the actual soldiers but I'm not really qualified to say whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. The Marines hate being part of the Navy and sneer at the normal Army grunts. The Air Force pilots have an elitist attitude that rankles with the front line ground troops.

 

We need the various armed forces for their special skills, but they can get that training and be assigned to units the same way without having the burden of four seperate military institutions. It's hideously expensive to be so compartmentalized.

[Douglas]

I feel that a great deal of military spending can be curbed by unifying the military under a single command.

They're doing that to some extent (at least more than they used to). An example would be the new "joint strike fighter", designed to meet the needs of the airforce, navy and marines.

[Phi for All]

They're doing that to some extent (at least more than they used to). An example would be the new "joint strike fighter", designed to meet the needs of the airforce, navy and marines.

The JSF is a good example of how a plane made for multifunctionality can be made less expensively because demand and mass production is going to keep the price down. Definitely a step in the right direction, but how much extra did we have to pay to have three different sets of staff input go through three different and compartmentalized procedures for operations? And how much extra money had to be alloted for Northrop Grumman, Lockheed, BAE and all the rest to deal with input from the three seperate branches?

[john5746]

Phi, I like your idea, but I can just hear the media blaming the next friendly fire or military screw up on the consolidation of the armed forces.

[Phi for All]

Phi, I like your idea, but I can just hear the media blaming the next friendly fire or military screw up on the consolidation of the armed forces.

Actually I think it would help control those types of situations. Less lines to cross and simpler chains of command would make for better communications. And they could all wear the same uniforms, with slightly different insignia!

 

Where I think the idea is weak is in security. Right now spies have to go through the military compartmentalization to find out much of value. If the military branches were consolidated it might make secrets less secret. But the benefits of unity far outweigh the security risks, imo.

[Douglas]

And how much extra money had to be alloted for Northrop Grumman, Lockheed, BAE and all the rest to deal with input from the three seperate branches?

Phi, I wish I knew the answer to that, but I suspect a lot of money.

 

Interesting you mentioned Lockheed and BAE. I used to work in the electronics sector of Lockheed Martin. LMC electronics was to get the avionics contract for JSF no matter who won the main contract. Shortly after I left Lockheed, BAE bought out the entire electronics sector of Lockheed.......so they got the contract.

[Skye]

I'm sorry, I was trying to avoid a semantic conflict by using the phrase "military spending," but I see I let quite a few "defense spending"s slip through.

That's fine, it's not really an issue because the word defence is often used to mean 'defence of the nation and its interests' within defence bureaucracy, so it is broadened to mean whatever the politicians want to do with the forces.

 

But my point was that China's military only operates only for the defence or security of China, whereas the US military operates over a much broader area.

Call this flawed logic if you wish, but the only conceivable reason I can see us spending as much on our military as the rest of the world combined is because we plan on being in a military conflict with the rest of the world combined.

 

(Yes, obviously we're in a state of war while the rest of the world is not, but I hope you get my drift)

That's partly what I was saying by saying the US spends the money 'to provide security in the broad areas that the US economy relies on, North America, Europe and North Asia.' Ok, it's not the whole world, and if war actually broke out spending would have to rise, but there's alot of money spent to provide a big disincentive to people making war in these areas.

[john5746]

Actually I think it would help control those types of situations. Less lines to cross and simpler chains of command would make for better communications. And they could all wear the same uniforms' date=' with slightly different insignia!

 

Where I think the idea is weak is in security. Right now spies have to go through the military compartmentalization to find out much of value. If the military branches were consolidated it might make secrets less secret. But the benefits of unity far outweigh the security risks, imo.[/quote']

 

Oh, I wasn't saying your idea would cause those problems, just that it might get the blame - similar to the FEMA - Homeland Security deal.

[Phi for All]

Oh, I wasn't saying your idea would cause those problems, just that it might get the blame - similar to the FEMA - Homeland Security deal.

Gotcha, and you're 100% right. Every military failure, every miscommunication, every toe shot off would be blamed on the unification for a while. But I think 3-4 years of saving tens or hundreds of billions of dollars would eventually earn it's praise.