Stop the Madness!

[Andrew D]

US military spending is deranged.

The US spends 4.8% of its GDP on its military. That is nuts.

Consider the twenty-seven non-US NATO countries[1] and two important non-NATO allies of the US: Australia and Japan. Look at how much of their GDPs those twenty-nine countries spend, on average, on their militaries:

--> The non-US NATO members plus Australia and Japan spend 1.5% of their GDPs on their militaries.

--> All but one (96.96%) of those twenty-nine countries[2] spend half or less of their GDPs on their militaries than the 4.8% of its GDP which the US spends on its military.

--> Eighteen (62.1%) of those twenty-nine countries[3] spend one third or less of their GDPs on their militaries than the 4.8% of its GDP which the US spends on its military.

--> Eight (27.6%) of those twenty-nine countries[4] spend one fourth or less of their GDPs on their militaries than the 4.8% of its GDP which the US spends on its military.

But Some NATO Countries Are Relatively Poor

One might well be tempted to think that because many of those twenty-nine countries are relatively poor, the relatively rich countries rightly spend more of their GDPs on their militaries than the 4.8% of its GDP which the US spends on its military..

One would be wrong.

--> The fifteen of those twenty-nine countries[5] whose per capita GDPs are at least half of the US's per capita GDP spend, on average, the same 1.5% of their GDPs on their militaries as do all twenty-nine of those countries combined.

--> The twelve of those twenty-nine countries[6] whose per capita GDPs are at least three fourths of the US's per capita GDP spend, on average, even less of their GDPs on their militaries: 1.4%.

--> Even the six of those twenty-nine countries[7] whose per capita GDPs are greater than the US's per capita GDP likewise spend, on average, only 1.4% of their GDPs on their militaries.

But What About Russia?

One might well be tempted to think that Russia's military spending requires such high military spending by the US.

One would be wrong.

--> In order to match the US's military spending, Russia would have to increase its military spending from 3.9% of its GDP to 10.0% of its GDP.

--> In order to match the military spending of the twenty-nine countries -- the twenty-seven non-US NATO countries plus Australia and Japan -- Russia would have to increase its military spending from 3.9% of its GDP to 18.3% of its GDP.

So What Should We Do?

The US should reduce its military spending to match that of its NATO allies plus Australia and Japan: 1.5% of its GDP. That means, in millions of constant dollars, reducing our annual military spending from $689,591 to $215,497 -- a reduction of $474,094.

Obviously, we are not going to get there immediately. But the faster we get there, the more money we will save:

If we reduce our annual military spending by a mere 5% of $474,094 million ($23,704.7 million; only 3.4375% of the $689,591 million total), we will reach the annual target of $215,497 million in twenty years . At the end of the first ten of those twenty years, we will have saved more than $1.3 trillion. At the end of those twenty years, we will have saved just shy of $5 trillion.

If we reduce our annual military spending by a mere 10% of $474,094 million ($47,409.4 million; only 6.875% of the $689,591 million total), we will reach the annual target of $215,497 million in ten years. At the end of those ten years, we will have saved more than $2.6 trillion. If we remain at that target level for the next ten years, at the end of those twenty years, we will have saved just shy of $10 trillion.

If we reduce our annual military spending by a marginally reasonable 15% of $474,094 million ($71,114.1 million; 10.3125% of the $689,591 million total), we will reach the annual target of $215,497 million during the seventh year. At the end of those seven years, we will have saved just shy of $2 trillion. If we remain at that target level for the next three years, at the end of those ten years, we will have saved just shy of $4 trillion. If we remain at that target level for ten years after that, at the end of those twenty years, we will have saved just shy of $15 trillion.

If we reduce our annual military spending by a somewhat more reasonable 20% of $474,094 million ($94,818.8 million; 13.75% of the $689,591 million total), we will reach the annual target of $215,497 in five years. At the end of those five years, we will have saved more than $1.4 trillion. If we remain at that target level for the next five years, at the end of those ten years, we will have saved more than $5.2 trillion. If we remain at that target level for ten years after that, at the end of those twenty years, we will have saved just shy of $20 trillion.

If we reduce our annual military spending by an entirely reasonable 25% of $474,094 million ($118,523.5 million; 17.1875% of the $689,591 total), we will reach the annual target in four years. At the end of those four years, we will have saved almost $1.2 trillion. If we remain at that target level for the next six years, at the end of those ten years, we will have saved more than $6.5 trillion. If we remain at that target level for ten years after that, at the end of those twenty years, we will have saved almost $25 trillion.

None of that would be enough to solve our entire debt/deficit problem. But the numbers are not chump change. Savings of almost $1.2 trillion in four years, more than $6.5 trillion in ten years, and almost $25 trillion in twenty years are not chump change. (For that matter, even savings of more than $1.3 trillion over ten years and almost $5 trillion over twenty years are not chump change either.)

If one is serious about debt/deficit reduction, one must include reductions in our bloated military budget. And until we have addressed our bloated military budget (as well as corporate welfare in all its forms), we should not even consider cuts in our social safety net.

Notes

1. Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, and United Kingdom.

2. All except United Kingdom.

3. Albania, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain.

4. Belgium, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, and Spain.

5. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and United Kingdom.

6. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and United Kingdom.

7. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Norway.

[Edited to rewrite the entire "So What Should We Do" portion.]

[rubato]

"... We need to save more than 3.8 trillion dollars. Other things will have to be done. But in the big picture, no deficit/debt-reduction plan should be taken at all seriously unless it includes a military-budget-reduction proposal at least comparable to the foregoing one. ... "

Anyone who honestly cares about the deficit would reduce military spending.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Anyone who honestly cares about the deficit would reduce military spending.

Anyone who honestly cares about the deficit would look at ways to reduce just about all of the feds spending. Military included.

[dales]

How about an across-the-board 15% cut in ALL federal spending?

I know, it will NEVER work.

Too many oxen being gored.

[Long Run]

Across the board cuts are mindless and do not account for the fact that the country's number one priority is national defense -- it is the only reason there is a United States of America. That doesn't mean you don't cut military spending (or reduce future increases), but there should be a debate about what our national defense interests are and how much we need to spend to achieve that, not some automatic formula that makes the National Endowment for the Arts as important as protecting against terrorist attacks.

Andrew makes an argument that we should reduce our spending to that of the rest of our main allies. While this would provide equity among allies, it would also likely lead to a much more dangerous world. This is not analysis of what level of military spending is necessary among our allies -- it is an argument to make the point that we carry an unfair load. It would be interesting, though, to see how other countries would react if the U.S. were to dramatically cut its military spending.

[oldr_n_wsr]

it is an argument to make the point that we carry an unfair load. It would be interesting, though, to see how other countries would react if the U.S. were to dramatically cut its military spending.

Right on.

[dales]

To Long Run:

BEWARE THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

~ Dwight Eisenhower c. 1959

eta: everyone knows what a one-worlder socialist pinko he was.

[Gob]

Across the board cuts are mindless and do not account for the fact that the country's number one priority is national defense -- it is the only reason there is a United States of America.

Damn, I always thought you were one of the sane ones LR

[rubato]

Across the board cuts are mindless and do not account for the fact that the country's number one priority is national defense -- it is the only reason there is a United States of America. That doesn't mean you don't cut military spending (or reduce future increases), but there should be a debate about what our national defense interests are and how much we need to spend to achieve that, not some automatic formula that makes the National Endowment for the Arts as important as protecting against terrorist attacks.

Andrew makes an argument that we should reduce our spending to that of the rest of our main allies. While this would provide equity among allies, it would also likely lead to a much more dangerous world. This is not analysis of what level of military spending is necessary among our allies -- it is an argument to make the point that we carry an unfair load. It would be interesting, though, to see how other countries would react if the U.S. were to dramatically cut its military spending.

The explosion in military spending is mindless and shows no empirical connection whatsoever between any reasonable threat and the amount spent defending us from it.

What Desert Storm proved, by defeating the 4th?, 5th? largest military on earth in a few hours on the opposite side of the planet is that we need only a fraction of what we have for any defensive purposes. All of the rest is welfare for the rich.

We can cut it in half and still have much more than we need.


yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

I have rewritten the entire "So What Should We Do?" portion of the opening posting. The rewritten version reads:

So What Should We Do?

The US should reduce its military spending to match that of its NATO allies plus Australia and Japan: 1.5% of its GDP. That means, in millions of constant dollars, reducing our annual military spending from $689,591 to $215,497 -- a reduction of $474,094.

Obviously, we are not going to get there immediately. But the faster we get there, the more money we will save:

If we reduce our annual military spending by a mere 5% of $474,094 million ($23,704.7 million; only 3.4375% of the $689,591 million total), we will reach the annual target of $215,497 million in twenty years . At the end of the first ten of those twenty years, we will have saved more than $1.3 trillion. At the end of those twenty years, we will have saved just shy of $5 trillion.

If we reduce our annual military spending by a mere 10% of $474,094 million ($47,409.4 million; only 6.875% of the $689,591 million total), we will reach the annual target of $215,497 million in ten years. At the end of those ten years, we will have saved more than $2.6 trillion. If we remain at that target level for the next ten years, at the end of those twenty years, we will have saved just shy of $10 trillion.

If we reduce our annual military spending by a marginally reasonable 15% of $474,094 million ($71,114.1 million; 10.3125% of the $689,591 million total), we will reach the annual target of $215,497 million during the seventh year. At the end of those seven years, we will have saved just shy of $2 trillion. If we remain at that target level for the next three years, at the end of those ten years, we will have saved just shy of $4 trillion. If we remain at that target level for ten years after that, at the end of those twenty years, we will have saved just shy of $15 trillion.

If we reduce our annual military spending by a somewhat more reasonable 20% of $474,094 million ($94,818.8 million; 13.75% of the $689,591 million total), we will reach the annual target of $215,497 in five years. At the end of those five years, we will have saved more than $1.4 trillion. If we remain at that target level for the next five years, at the end of those ten years, we will have saved more than $5.2 trillion. If we remain at that target level for ten years after that, at the end of those twenty years, we will have saved just shy of $20 trillion.

If we reduce our annual military spending by an entirely reasonable 25% of $474,094 million ($118,523.5 million; 17.1875% of the $689,591 total), we will reach the annual target in four years. At the end of those four years, we will have saved almost $1.2 trillion. If we remain at that target level for the next six years, at the end of those ten years, we will have saved more than $6.5 trillion. If we remain at that target level for ten years after that, at the end of those twenty years, we will have saved almost $25 trillion.

None of that would be enough to solve our entire debt/deficit problem. But the numbers are not chump change. Savings of almost $1.2 trillion in four years, more than $6.5 trillion in ten years, and almost $25 trillion in twenty years are not chump change. (For that matter, even savings of more than $1.3 trillion over ten years and almost $5 trillion over twenty years are not chump change either.)

If one is serious about debt/deficit reduction, one must include reductions in our bloated military budget. And until we have addressed our bloated military budget (as well as corporate welfare in all its forms), we should not even consider cuts in our social safety net.

[Andrew D]

Across the board cuts are mindless and do not account for the fact that the country's number one priority is national defense -- it is the only reason there is a United States of America.

Actually, the United States of America was created in order to improve the odds that the American Revolution would be successful. ("We must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately.") A revolution is "national defense" only in a sense so attenuated as to be incredible.

(And "provide for the common defence" is only one of six reasons why the people of the United States "ordain[ed] and establish[ed]" our Constitution. And of those six, national defense came in fourth.*)

Andrew makes an argument ... that we carry an unfair load.

It is not so much an argument as an observation of the stunningly obvious.

-------------------------

* "We, the People of the United States, in Order to [1] form a more perfect Union, [2] establish Justice, [3] insure domestic tranquility, [4] provide for the common defence, [5] promote the general Welfare, and [6] secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[Edited to bring the footnote into the posting in which it belongs.]

[Andrew D]

... there should be a debate about what our national defense interests are and how much we need to spend to achieve that ....

And we should start with what our national defense interests are not.

As of 2009, pending arms-procurement projects were running billion over budget. Why? Because, as one observer has remarked, defense contractors follow "the time-honored procedure of lowballing the cost estimates to get the contract, then running up the price." So we get things like the F-35, which started at $65 million per plane but ended up rising to $158 million per plane.

That is not spending for our national defense interests. It is spending for corporate enrichment.

And we should not tolerate it. The proper rule is simple: "You promised that you would provide it to us for $X billion, so you will provide it to us for $X billion. Any excess comes out of your money, not ours."

Then there are the arms which Congress forces on the Pentagon, even when the Pentagon says that it does not need them or want them. Congress uses the military budget as a jobs program. Just last year, Congress tried to force on the Pentagon -- among many other things -- the Global Hawk Block 30 drone program, the C-27J Spartan cargo aircraft, upgrades to the M1 Abrams tank, and an East Coast missile defense system. All of those are things which the Pentagon says that it does not want and does not need, but Congress wants to inflict them on the Pentagon anyway.

And those were just projects dear to the hearts of Representatives from Ohio. Why did they want them, even though the Pentagon did not? Because some Ohio jobs, especially in Dayton, depended on them.

That is not spending for national defense. That is a government employment program. "On Capitol Hill, lawmakers whose states or districts contain military installations or defense contractors have a gentlemen's agreement not to attack each other's pie slice. ... The result of this unwritten congressional rule--I won't challenge your boondoggle if you won't challenge mine--is that spending for any one military or security category can rise only if all such expenditures rise."

And defense contractors understand that: "The contractors for mega-projects like the F-35 carefully distribute construction throughout almost every state."

Which brings up something well worth emphasis:

DEFENSE-CONTRACTOR JOBS ARE PUBLIC-SECTOR JOBS.

Members of Congress -- overwhelmingly Republicans -- who complain incessantly about the costs of public-sector jobs while voting to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into military spending are lying through their teeth. The truth of the matter is that defense-contractor jobs are public-sector jobs. The only significant difference between them and the jobs that are officially classified as public-sector jobs is the corporate middlemen who rake in huge profits at the taxpayers' expense.

Anyway, consider the F-22. The prime contract for that misbegotten project was awarded in 1991. Years passed. Year after year after year. While members of Congress were squabbling over which district would get the precious subcontracts -- again, a jobs program, not national-security spending -- the cost more than doubled in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Fourteen years after the prime contract was awarded, the first F-22 arrived at the Air Force. But for what? It was originally conceived as an aircraft to battle Soviet aircraft in the skies over Europe. But by the time it emerged from defense-contractor neverland, the Soviet Union no longer existed. So "it was unclear what the plane would do, other than be something really cool for members of Congress to have their pictures taken next to. The F-22 has never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan: Either the plane is irrelevant to low-intensity war, or the Air Force fears one will get shot down by some cheap, old-fashioned weapon. The project was finally ended [in 2009], but only after a nasty and protracted fight in Congress."

That is not spending for national security. That is money wasted on a hugely expensive program that, once it finally became operational, served no militarily useful purpose.

And that is the story -- well, part of the story; the wasteful bloatedness goes much further -- of military procurement. Sure, the military needs stuff, and acquiring that stuff costs money. But there is no excuse for hundreds of billions of dollars in over-budget projects, projects rammed down the unwilling throat of the Pentagon, and projects that move so slowly that by the time they are operationally ready, there is no longer any need for them.

By seriously addressing such issues, we could save hundreds of billions of dollars. And that would not impair our national security one single bit.

[Edited to move the footnote to the posting in which it belongs and to correct "huge projects" to "huge profits".]

[Econoline]

Members of Congress -- overwhelmingly Republicans -- who complain incessantly about the costs of public-sector jobs while voting to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into military spending are lying through their teeth. The truth of the matter is that defense-contractor jobs are public-sector jobs. The only significant difference between them and the jobs that are officially classified as public-sector jobs is the corporate middlemen who rake in huge projects at the taxpayers' expense.

Another difference is that if we decided that we truly needed more public-sector jobs (to reduce the unemployment rate, for instance) those who favored those jobs would have to be more honest about whether the end product those jobs produced was really necessary or desirable. Throwing up the smokescreen of "national defense" tends to produce uncritical thinking in the budget process.

[rubato]

Public sector jobs which improve infrastructure, roads, bridges, water systems, flood control, harbors, continue to provide economic benefits for decades to come, while military spending is a consumptive use.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Not entirely, the Army Corps of Engineers gets involved in many public works projects. The National Guard/Reserve provide much needed support after disasters. And military spending provides access to education through the academies and scholarships for students who might otherwise not be able to afford college. Sure, it might be more cost-effective to fund these efforts directly and not through the military, but there are some unaticipated benefits to the military spending.

[Andrew D]

The wasteful bloatedness of military spending -- though Big RR is quite right that some military spending has benefits -- does not end with arms procurement. (And arms procurement is not public-works spending or disaster-relief spending or college-education spending.)

Why do we have 53,786 troops in Germany? Is Germany in some danger of invasion?

What? Russia is going to march through Poland to invade Germany? Or through Ukraine, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic to invade Germany? Or is Russia going to invade Poland, Ukraine, or any of the Baltic States?

In the event of any of those surreal possibilities, the US could wipe out the invasion force from the air. And make no mistake: The US owns the air.

So why do we need 53,786 ground troops in a country (a) which is in no danger of invasion and (b) which we could defend against invasion without more than a tiny amount of ground troops?

Why do we need 39,222 troops in Japan? Is Japan in some danger of invasion?

Japan cannot be invaded by land. (It is a group of islands.) Invasion of Japan by sea would be even easier to wipe out than invasion of Germany by land.

If either Germany or Japan were attacked by air, the US could annihilate the invading air force. If either Germany or Japan were attacked with nuclear weapons, the tens of thousands of US troops on the ground would be useless. They would be nothing but additional figures in the death toll. So what are they doing there?

And why do we have 10,801 troops in Italy? Who is going to invade Italy? Tunisia? Greece? Austria? France? Switzerland?

We have over 100,000 troops stationed in Germany, Japan, and Italy. What the hell for?

Okay, we need to have small contingents of troops in each of those countries: They are among our allies; we have air bases, hospitals, embassies, and consulates there; etc.

But 103,809 troops in just those three countries? Why?

And let's not forget the economic impact. We, the taxpayers of the US, pay those 103,809 troops. Which is a fine thing: We as a nation have called upon them to serve; they have answered the call; we ought to pay them (and to provide them medical care both when they are in service and afterwards, an obligation on which we have disgracefully defaulted).

But the money which we pay them goes largely into the economies of the countries in which they are stationed. They eat meals at German and Japanese and Italian restaurants, they watch films at German and Japanese and Italian theaters, etc.

All of that is money which could have been going into the US economy. Instead, it goes into the economies of Germany, Japan, and Italy. So not only do we spend our money defending -- or, at least, supposedly defending -- those countries; we actually pay them to let us "defend" them.

What kind of sense does that make?

We "defend" those countries. They are in no serious danger of invasion. If they were invaded, we could repel any such invasion without needing anything like 53,786 or 39,222 or 10,801 troops there. If they were nuked, our 103,809 troops there would do nothing but increase the death tolls. And we, in effect, pay those countries to let us "defend" them.

The whole policy is demented. And it is long past time for us to put an end to it.

[Long Run]

Those are the kind of questions that should be asked. It is apparent, though, that many of those bases serve as our advance locations for access to other parts of the world (e.g., Germany bases serve as advance points to the Middle East for missions and hospitals for injured soldiers; Japanese bases serve to provide access to East Asia). It would seem we could continue the process of reducing the size and number of our bases, but I'll let more knowledgeable people guide the debate. With the size of future deficits, any discussion will have to include an intensive re-examination of our needs in this and other budget areas.

[Andrew D]

Those are the kind of questions that should be asked.

And the people making the decisions should answer them. Have you heard any of that lately?

It is apparent, though, that many of those bases serve as our advance locations for access to other parts of the world (e.g., Germany bases serve as advance points to the Middle East for missions and hospitals for injured soldiers; Japanese bases serve to provide access to East Asia).

"Advance locations" for what?

(Hospitals for injured soldiers are, of course, fine things; it would be inexcusable to do without them. But we probably would not need them so much, if we were not engaged in so much foreign adventurism in the first place.)

"Advance points to the Middle East"? So we can get bogged down yet again in year after year of pointless slaughter? Or maybe we need 56,786 troops in Germany to stop Jordan from invading Lebanon?

"Access to East Asia"? We need 39,222 troops in Japan in case Thailand decides to invade Laos?

... I'll let more knowledgeable people guide the debate.

The "more knowledgeable people" helped to get us into this mess. Yes, far less knowledgeable people in Congress helped by, among other things, demanding arms which the "more knowledgeable people" said were unnecessary, but those "more knowledgeable people" presided over arms-procurement programs which ran $300 billion over budget and the acquisition of arms that were already useless by the time they were ready.

What we need are people in power who are willing to say "Enough."

"Enough feeding the defense-contracting industry. Enough paying for other countries' self-defense and then paying them even more for the 'privilege' of defending them. Enough stationing tens of thousands of troops around the world for no reason other than we do not know what else to do with them. Enough."

Lamentably, such people seem to be in short supply.

[Long Run]

Everyone is in favor of better government, and spending money on stuff/services that is not a high priority is hardly confined to the politics of Defense spending, and Defense should get as hard an overview as every other program. As for the general proposal to dramatically cut spending, this implies a radical change in the bipartisan foreign policy of the last 70 years; doesn't seem likely.

[dgs49]

Just a footnote on the cost explostion of major weapon systems (having worked in DoD procurement for several years). The plane that is produced is only cosmetically similar to the one that is first procured. Because these weapon systems have a lifespan of decades, the project leaders are positively paranoid about NOT having the latest technology in literally every aspect of the unit, whatever it is. What happens is that any new development in any area that comes up during the design and manufacturing process MUST be incorporated into the design. For a plane, that means that space has to be made for it, and it might affect the weight, balance, power consumption, etc, etc, etc., thus requiring re-design and retrofiting of dozens of other subsystems in the plane. Otherwise, it will be obsolete by the time it takes its first flight.

The actual profitability of major defense weapons providers has never been good. It is a constant battle to see that you are paid for everything that is being demanded, and the procuremnt officers are constantly trying to get something for nothing. There is a lot of blame to go around, but whining about exhorbitant profits by defense contractors is just silly and uninformed.